Debate contribution: Democratic Consent Resolution

Debate contribution by Dr Steve Aiken OBE on 10 December 2024.

MLA

Dr Steve Aiken OBE

Party at the time

Ulster Unionist Party

Date

10 December 2024

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

Democratic Consent Resolution

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4716169

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I thank the Members who have contributed to the debate so far. In some ways, it has been educational, but, in other ways, it has not been. I will speak on the democratic consent mechanism and our party's opposition to the retention of articles 5 to 10 inclusive of the Windsor framework. I will talk about politics and the generalities and about the articles themselves. To preface our detailed remarks on the articles, I put on record our party's oft-stated and clearly stated opposition to the protocol and the imposition of the Irish Sea border. If Members do not mind, I will move around a bit. My knee is a bit sore. Do not worry about that. Unlike some parties on both sides of the House, we always took the line of looking out for the best interests of Northern Ireland. We never joined the SDLP, Sinn Féin or the Alliance Party in seeking full implementation of the protocol, regardless of the impact that that would have on all of us. For clarity, we advocated Remain in 2016, but, as democrats who believe in the United Kingdom, we accept that our nation as a whole voted to leave. Since that date, as well as accepting the result, we have therefore striven to see a pragmatic deal delivered. We engaged extensively, much like the leader of the Alliance Party, in London, Brussels, Dublin and further afield, being in the room and talking, although I doubt that we were listened to, with Michel Barnier, Maroš Šefcovic, Rishi Sunak, Theresa May, Johnson, Frost, Davis, Enda Kenny, Leo Varadkar, Simon Coveney, Liz Truss and Micheál Martin, among others. On every occasion, Lord Empey and I made the case for an agreement that was as minimal-touch as possible, asking those who were supposedly negotiating for us to recognise that there was very little, if any, risk to the European single market from Northern Ireland. As members of the Ulster Unionist Party, which led on creating the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement, we knew how destabilising an overzealous deal would be to Northern Ireland and to the wider all-island and all-islands relationships. Our advice fell on deaf ears. One can but ask why. Some, in the case of Leo Varadkar and Simon Coveney, despicably sought to mislead and raise the spectre of a return to violence if there were even any minimal checks on the EU border. Others, who sought just to punish the United Kingdom for having the temerity to leave the EU, took a maximalist approach and made the economic sovereignty of Northern Ireland the price of any agreement. Meanwhile, we took every opportunity to make the case for a pragmatic, minimalist and mutually beneficial agreement. In that, I regret to say, we failed. We sought to create a deal that did not create a growing divergence or that doubled bureaucracy but one that allowed continuous access to human and veterinary medicines, to the flexible use of state aid and to an all-island energy market. We definitely did not advocate costly border control and customs-checking infrastructure such as that which is being built in Larne, Belfast, Warrenpoint and Holyhead, with money that could be better spent elsewhere across our nation. We gave a copy of our ideas to every stakeholder to whom we talked, and they were many. Nothing that was our view then has since changed. You cannot argue that we have offered no alternative when we have done so continuously. At no stage did our proposed deal envisage the imposition of an internal border within our nation, and those who advocated, at the behest of a mendacious Prime Minister, that this trade protection measure was a sensible option and a sound idea, should continue, regrettably, to hold their heads in shame. Boris Johnson, in his recent memoir, admits that he put too much faith in Leo Varadkar and the EU playing fair, so a charge of naivety can be added to the one of mendacity against him. Regrettably, we are where we are. However, no one should fall for the siren calls from some, most notably the same full implementer protagonists, that Northern Ireland somehow has the best of both worlds. Any recent growth that we have had, welcome as it is, has, as Ulster University said last week, come largely from professional services, the public sector and, in a very limited way, manufacturing. The majority of that, as we all know, is not covered by the Windsor framework. We delude ourselves by pretending that we somehow are in a uniquely positive position. We have only to look at the recent Mercosur agreement between the European Union and South American countries, which the Irish Farmers' Association (IFA) said would grant market access to hundreds of thousands of tons of poultry and beef at a zero-rate tariff and decimate the Irish and EU beef and poultry sectors. The IFA added:

"Ireland would be most impacted by this displacement given we are the largest exporters of beef within the EU".

What will our full implementers say about how to stop that from impacting on the Northern Ireland agriculture sector?

Certainly.

I thank the honourable Member — I do call you "honourable" because we have debated these and many issues — but the key issue is that the Mercosur agreement is going to have a huge impact on farming on this island. That is not fearmongering: it is the reality of the open borders that are insisted upon by article 5. As has already been said, the chief executive officer of Invest NI recently explained that he has no evidence of any companies coming to invest in Northern Ireland because of any perceived benefit from the Windsor framework. There is a reason for that, because instead of being in the best of both worlds, we are now in a morass of additional arcane rules, regulations and non-tariff measures on everything from labelling —

— to digital passport classification, general product safety regulations and much more, all of which are adding cost and uncertainty to consumers and businesses alike. Please.

I thank the Member for his intervention because I did check, and I asked many trade bodies. The Member will be aware that I used to be the chief executive of a major trade body. Indeed, one that was responsible for £1 billion worth of trade back and forth across the Irish Sea every week. There have still been no examples of such investment.

You have already had your intervention.

No, sorry.

Excuse me, I will continue. An accumulation of changes is making us diverge increasingly from our largest market — our own nation. The message to our companies and those who are looking at investing here is that the costs of doing business here are higher. Rather than being a streamlined and pro-business environment, we are increasingly being sucked into a morass of excessive legislation and rules. The cumulative effect is impacting on all of us, which is why, if we actually looked at it objectively, all MLAs should vote to reject articles 5 to 10. The main reason for that is simple: we need to send a strong message to Brussels and London that we all want to see the interests of Northern Ireland put first. If we do not do that and start the reform process now, we will be tied into another eight years of stultifying and restrictive legislation that does little or nothing for Northern Ireland. However, we know that this is not about doing what is right for us. It is about ideology, as some believe that the continued application of articles 5 to 10 will lead inexorably to an ever-expanding internal border within our own country, the United Kingdom. Some, if not most, of those who will vote for the retention of those articles believe that, after eight years, our economies will have diverged so far that constitutional change will become inevitable.

It is no surprise that the SNP wants an arrangement similar to the Windsor framework, not for the good of Scotland but to help to render asunder the Union. However, by myopically supporting the retention of articles 5 to 10, we will serve only to undermine our economy for our farmers, our business people, our consumers, our entrepreneurs and, indeed, for all of us: nationalists, unionists and others. Let us move specifically to articles 5 to 10. As the consent mechanism requires us to vote on articles 5 to 10 in their entirety, at this stage, we have to examine the combined and cumulative effect of those rules and draw a judgement on them. So far, as well as the existing EU legislation that has been carried over under those articles, we have, since January this year, adopted around 23 regulations and responded to several applicability motions. Members will note that, during that time, the EU Commission, the EU Parliament and the Council of the European Union were largely moribund, given that the EU elections were in the summer of this year. In a normal year, we can expect, on average, 80 directives, 1,200 regulations and around 700 decisions to come from Brussels. While some of those may not apply to the Windsor framework, many will, fully or in part. The likely volume of future legislation, directives, applicability motions, decisions and regulations makes it inconceivable that we can adequately scrutinise that volume of change coming in our direction. We have not even properly scrutinised the 23 regulations that we have had before us, having held inquiries into less than 20% of those EU requirements. There is absolutely no way that the Assembly can currently act as the scrutiny safeguard that the people of Northern Ireland need. As was stated to us recently in Brussels, even countries such as Norway and EU countries such as Estonia struggle to comprehend that legislative tsunami. We therefore need a way to limit the scope of those EU regulations in Northern Ireland. Just because some of us cannot understand what is being imposed on us, there is no reason why we should blindly accept it. Why should we accept differing standards in laws from Brussels from those that we would accept from London or even those that we enact ourselves? Surely, that is what democracy is about? We should be starting that process of scrutiny and accountability by rejecting articles 5 to 10, thereby sending a message that we should seek to cease the application of those articles while we seek an arrangement with the European Union and the British Government that is pragmatic, pro Northern Ireland and does not impose internal borders. We also need to bear in mind that the worst impacts of the provisions laid out in articles 5 to 10 are yet to be implemented. Rejecting them would give us time for a fundamental review of the process before permanent harm is done. By sending out that message today, we can categorically say that we want to be heard and have a say in the laws that affect us. Currently, there is little or no direct, effective dialogue between the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly and the key UK Government and EU stakeholders. We can attend meetings like low-grade civil servants in the alphabet soup of EU-UK Joint Committees. However, by rejecting articles 5 to 10, we could and should be communicating the strong case that we should not be bystanders but sitting as equal partners on the Withdrawal Agreement Joint Committee. If it impacts on Northern Ireland, we should have a say. The Stormont brake, for those who have studied it, is anything but. At best, it is a loud alarm that real harm is being done to Northern Ireland, but without any direct mechanism to influence a call for a halt or delay of the implementation of areas covered by articles 5 to 10. Remember, the brake does not mean stop. It means that the UK and EU Governments will think about it for a year or so, possibly. You may hear arguments that the negotiations between the UK and EU will not, or cannot, be reopened, even though we know that, in fewer than 13 months' time, the Trade and Cooperation Agreement is being tabled for review. Even a cursory glance at any of the EU official press releases will show the flexibility, negotiation and pragmatism that are shown daily on trade deals, treaties and international arrangements. However, to be clear, that is only when it is in Brussels's interests. So why can they, and we, not put Northern Ireland's interests first? Northern Ireland should be in Brussels's interests because, after all, every EU official I have ever met has told our party how central the European Union was to the peace process. To be honest, that came as a bit of a surprise to some of our party members who were involved in the talks, but I digress. It was stated in the Secretary of State's explanatory notes to the motion that opinion on these articles should be sought from institutions created by the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement. The Assembly is one of those institutions, as are the Northern Ireland Executive, and our opinion is not being sought. It is being ignored. As we are the custodians of the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement and the political representatives of the people of Northern Ireland, our voice needs to have equal weight where rules and regulations pertain to Northern Ireland. Others will comment on the fact — some already have — that the motion will not be subject to cross-community support. As the party that supported and was fundamental to the creation of, the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement, we believe that the failure to adhere to that convention is a grave mistake. Again, if it was not for the ideological position of some Members, we would all be agreeing on that. Being partial with community consent on such major constitutional issues as this will have profound and long-lasting implications. Please, Members on all sides of the Chamber, allow that thought to sink in.

I thank the Member for bringing up her party's position, yet again, but the point was very ably made. Moving on. Curiously, the reasoning behind our having to follow articles 5 to 10 was that the integrity of the EU single market had to be protected at all costs. Article 5 places the integrity of the EU single market to the fore, but we have seen that the risk of EU single market contamination is minimal, even with the many derogations that we have continued to have in place up until now, but primacy over the UK internal market undermines our economy. The increasingly zealous application of those rules over our own needs will only exacerbate concerns about democratic accountability. While divergence from the rest of the United Kingdom is occurring in agriculture, manufacturing, regulations, medicines — I am glad that Mrs Long mentioned dental amalgams, because, remember, this is only deferring the adoption of the rules, not changing the rules — pet foods, animal welfare and much more, there is still not one example of the single market being put at risk by UK goods. However, as the adoption by the EU of the Mercosur agreement shows, there is a very real threat to contamination of our market and, by extension, the UK market by other imports coming from outside even the European Union. It is not the integrity of the EU internal market that is being compromised: it is our UK market that is being damaged. Article 6, while dealing with Northern Ireland to GB, does not consider the chilling effect of article 5 on moving goods into Northern Ireland, with GB companies of all sizes impacting on their own lean logistics, supply chains and circular economy. That recipisis — I will say that again. That recipis —. Anyhow —.

Reciprocity. Thank you, Naomi. That reciprocity across industry and our UK-wide supply chains is being damaged by the Windsor framework now. It has already started in the SME sectors. Unless it is halted, diversion and its chilling effect will spread further across all sectors of our economy. As we have heard from the likes of the Federation of Small Businesses, a review of those processes would be welcome, so why do we not give it to them by rejecting articles 5 to 10? On article 7, we have referred to the avalanche of regulations, directives and other non-tariff barriers that are having significant impacts on us, showing that a review of article 7 is also urgently required. The VAT rates on this island, which are discriminatory and impact on our hospitality sector in particular, are enshrined in article 8. Even if we hoped to negotiate a variation of VAT to enable our businesses to compete on a level playing field, under articles 8 and 10, we will not be able to do so. We cannot even take full advantage of the lower industrial and manufacturing energy costs in GB because of article 9 and the little-understood but far-reaching EU electricity market design reform mechanism. Provisions in that mechanism require our energy system to meet targets that are impossible to achieve without GB interconnections even though it is not physically connected to that of the rest of the island. I defer to my friend Mr Frew on that point. We do not have an all-island energy system. It is not there. It is only a virtual energy market. Paradoxically, GB is the only market to which we are physically connected and the only one from which we cannot gain an advantage. In fact, we will be financially penalised for doing so while adopting a protectionist system that adds cost to the consumer and does not add to the security of supply but will, in fact, make it worse and then make it more difficult for us to meet our net zero carbon targets. By voting for the retention of article 9, we will work against our carbon targets rather than accelerate towards a more secure energy system. The benefits of a large GB system, connected as it is to Norway and northern Europe, with a significantly higher penetration of renewable wind, backed up by secure nuclear and closed-cycle gas, are being denied to us by our remaining in the anti-competitive and monopolistic integrated single electricity market (ISEM). As anybody who has talked to our energy industry will tell you, England, Scotland and Wales, by coming under Ofgem, have certainty, while all we have is endless delays, shambolic non-strategies and article 9, which is not fit for purpose.

Yes, certainly.

Thank you very much indeed. The point is that we need to have an energy system on these islands that is fit for purpose. One thing that we can definitely say is that ISEM is not fit for purpose. It is not working. Thank you for raising the point, however. Article 9, surely, is not in our best interests. As has been, or should be, pointed out by other commentators, the so-called best of both worlds can be achieved only if other factors are considered, such as an all-island corporation tax, although, surreally, that would be deemed contrary to article 10. It also seems bizarre that article 10 has been quoted by certain UK government officials — I hope that they are listening — as a reason why aid cannot be given to Harland and Wolff when, clearly, all across the European Union, shipyards are either state-owned or heavily state-subsidised. It seems oxymoronic that that very article is quoted as a reason for not revitalising one of our vital historic and increasingly strategic industries. That is another reason why all MLAs should call out that article, as well as the others, for rejection. MLAs should take an objective rather than an ideological view on whether articles 5 to 10 benefit Northern Ireland. They categorically do not. Members will be whipped by the parties; those driven by ideology will not vote on the merits of articles 5 to 10 but will re-fight the Brexit referendum or cling to a nebulous belief that we will bring forward a constitutional referendum by undermining the foundation of the United Kingdom. Contrary arguments will be made about the constitutional integrity of the United Kingdom and how the protocol in all its parts undermines our Union. I have a lot of sympathy for that argument, but the real reason why we should reject articles 5 to 10 is that they fundamentally undermine the competitiveness of our economy. They work against our customers, our farmers, our hospitality sector, our green targets and even our livestock and domestic animals. The articles remove this place's role in democratic accountability.

Retaining those articles also takes away any bargaining power that we might have in the review of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement in 2026.

We hear many complaints in the Assembly about Westminster imposing rules and regulations. It is well beyond comprehension that those same MLAs would vote for the unbridled imposition of European Union rules. Supporting the retention of articles 5 to 10 would show that narrow ideology supplants the needs of our people. This will maybe not happen now, but soon the electorate will realise the severe long-term implications of the vote and will note who voted for the needs of the people rather than those of the EU and, I dare say, the British Government. I urge you all vote against the retention of articles 5 to 10.

3,583 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

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 reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification