Debate contribution: Democratic Consent Resolution

Debate contribution by Mrs Emma Little-Pengelly on 10 December 2024.

MLA

Mrs Emma Little-Pengelly

Party at the time

Democratic Unionist Party

Date

10 December 2024

Type

Debate contribution (made as a minister)

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

Democratic Consent Resolution

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4716292

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I am glad to have the opportunity to speak from the Back Bench in this important debate. We are discussing a matter of fundamental import. It is a serious matter, and it has an impact, particularly on many thousands of businesses, throughout Northern Ireland. It affects trade and our economy but also the very democratic and constitutional underpinnings of Northern Ireland and our sovereign United Kingdom. Across the Chamber, people will have different perspectives. For some, it will present ideological and constitutional issues, but, for all others, we ought to listen to the real and practical trade and economic issues that face businesses in each and every one of our constituencies in relation to articles 5 to 10. It is important to remember that the vote does not and will not revoke the protocol. We are debating a motion on articles 5 to 10. We have heard some exploration of that already. The reality is that those provisions are causing serious issues. The DUP's commitment is clear across all three of those issues: ideological issues, constitutional issues and those that relate to the practical trade implications. By building on the progress to date, the DUP will continue to fight to fully restore Northern Ireland's place in the United Kingdom. That means removing EU law that applies and any internal barriers that such laws create. The DUP will continue to argue the case for full primacy of the United Kingdom internal market and to reject the undermining of its integrity. That is why we have no hesitation in voting against the application of those articles and therefore triggering the review. The tale of the matter is both long and sad. It is not possible to talk to the matter without some consideration of how we got here. There have been disappointments and let-downs. There have been theatrics and dramatics. There has been buffoonery and blustering — of course, more about Boris later — and the continual dismissing and demeaning of serious concerns, which I have seen repeated here today. We cannot and ought not to sneer at each other across the Chamber when we raise real constitutional and ideological concerns that we genuinely feel. That has been the hallmark of the past eight years, and the lessons of the past eight years must be learned. They cannot be repeated. Issues must be addressed, and promises must be kept.

I am going to make a little bit more progress before I give way. Make no mistake: the mishandling of Brexit and the subsequent protocol was an unparalleled act of constitutional self-harm by the UK Government. No Government should ever have signed up to such terms. That agreement damaged the very fabric of our constitutional settlement and shattered the integrity of the UK internal market. The strength of an internal market matters. The integrity of an internal market is protected for the good reasons of fairness and strength and to create optimal internal trading and internal relationships. That is precisely why the integrity of the EU single market would never have been on the table during the Brexit negotiations. The integrity of the UK's single market should not have been on the table, yet it was. We are still dealing with that in 2024 because of the botched nature of those discussions and because the very integrity of our internal market — our single market in this United Kingdom — was placed on the table, negotiated away and damaged. From the ineptitude of Theresa May and her team to the blundering of blustering Boris, it has been a catalogue of mistakes, errors and own goals. It was a botched Brexit. Let us be very clear: this situation was not the inevitable result of Brexit; it is the result of a botched Brexit. They were warned. We warned them. I was there in Parliament raising my voice time and time again against what was proposed. There were many different ways to bring about the result of a democratic referendum across this United Kingdom. No matter what people across the Chamber think about Brexit, that was a democratic vote. I can tell you this: if it came to a vote on the reunification of Ireland and the vote passed but was ignored, the very same people who fight against the democratic outcome of the Brexit referendum would be howling if there was even a suggestion of that vote being ignored. Therefore, when the referendum happened, the DUP, rightly, regardless of the view on Brexit — there was a range of views on Brexit in unionism and in the DUP — took a position, which is and was that the result of the democratic referendum should be implemented. We also made clear that it ought to be implemented in a way that produced a good Brexit deal. That did not happen. It was a botched Brexit that started with key mistakes, such as timetabling agreements for negotiations that created pinch points to pressure the UK to early concessions that removed important negotiation flexibilities by Theresa May and her team. At every stage, we have heard the same thing, time and time again, which is, "This is the best deal that you are going to get". When Theresa May came up with her backstop, the very same thing was said, but we said that the backstop was never a backup. Yet, too many did not want to see that. The backstop deal that would have kept Northern Ireland formally and officially in the EU customs union was always going to be the final outcome. It was never going to be the backup. A blind man on a galloping horse could have seen that, yet there was collective gaslighting going on. People said, "Oh no, the backstop will never come in. Something else will be negotiated", but, of course, the backstop deal meant that nothing to replace it could be put in place unilaterally. The replacement of the backstop had to be agreed by the EU in the terms of that agreement. It was always going to be the outcome. Wall-to-wall, all declared that the negotiation was completed. As we raised concerns about the backstop provisions, we were told that it was not going to change. There were wails from Remainers on all sides of the House of Commons, from party leaders in Northern Ireland — the SDLP, Alliance and Sinn Féin — to the Lib Dems, Labour, the Back-Benchers of the Conservative Party and from worthy academics to practically all the media commentators saying that the backstop was not going to change. Then came Boris, and boom — the backstop is reopened. Great news, or it should have been. Boris blew it. The UK Government, the negotiators and the Prime Minister's team were, it appears, woefully unprepared, and that is what we are dealing with today, what we are trying to deal with week by week and why the Committee looks at all these unexpected, unforeseen, unpredicted issues that are causing real issues for businesses in every constituency. That is what we are dealing with today because of that original backstop leading to the protocol — that original agreement that was made. What we are dealing with today leads directly from Boris's botched Brexit deal, and it is not working. A wee wander through the garden with Leo Varadkar, and Boris signed up to the protocol and caused immeasurable damage. The protocol created a hard border down the Irish Sea and shattered our UK internal market. We warned Boris Johnson about that, but he would not heed the warnings. I am absolutely sick of the revisionism, the scoffing and people saying, "Why did the DUP negotiate with Boris Johnson?". Well, it was because he was the Prime Minister. He was the person leading the negotiations with the EU. He was the person with the ability to put on the table what needed to be done. He was the person who was going to sign his name on the bottom of that document and that agreement. That is why we did our best. That is why we endeavoured to ensure a good Brexit.

I thank the Member for her contribution. I should point out that the Conservative Party is not a sister party of the DUP, but the Lib Dems is a sister party of the Alliance Party and Labour is a sister party of the SDLP. At various times over the past number of years, you have cosied up to many different people who have then gone on to take part in votes and issues and make decisions that you disagree with, and ditto with what is happening with the Labour Government at the moment. That is the reality. The truth is that we were doing our best for the people of Northern Ireland by making our point at every opportunity to the Prime Minister. We invited the Prime Minister to our party conference because it was a great opportunity to make the points directly to him. Did he listen? No. Did he listen to the warnings? No. That is a shame on him. It is not a shame on us —

— for doing what we could do to fight for the people of Northern Ireland and to get the best deal and the best Brexit outcome. As I said, we warned Boris Johnson about that, and he did not heed the warnings. I think that everyone in the Chamber can tell that I am no fan of Boris Johnson, but the protocol also brought us this vote. It meant, and does mean, that, for the very first time since 1998 and for the very first time since the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement, a key decision and a key vote in the House that will affect everyone in Northern Ireland will not require cross-community support in the Assembly. The reality is that that is a fundamental change, and the only reason why any of you across the Chamber are not howling about that is that it is not in your interests to do so on this particular issue. I reiterate that this is the first and only key decision that the House will vote on that absolutely tears asunder the key values and principles that other parties in this Chamber championed around the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement.

1,719 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