Debate contribution: Democratic Consent Resolution

Debate contribution by Mr David Brooks on 10 December 2024.

MLA

Mr David Brooks

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 4716364

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Thanks to the comprehensiveness of my two colleagues who have spoken, I suspect that my speech might be only about two thirds the length of Jonny Buckley's contribution.

I suspect that I will also go over some of the same stuff, but, whilst I have the list of issues that was read out earlier, the Chamber can be thankful that I will not repeat it.

The mechanism that brings us to the House today represents a corruption of the most fundamental principles of the Good Friday Agreement that, we were told during the Brexit process by the very rigorous implementers who bring it before us today, no less, must have every jot and tittle respected and upheld. It is more concrete proof of that which unionists have known and seen to be true in the past eight years, which is that, for those who speak in such lofty terms about the peace process and have often hung much of their modern identity on it since 1998, referendums are to be respected only when they suit; that majoritarianism is to be discouraged and safeguarded against but only when it is not in their favour; that the so-called ugly scaffolding that was referred to earlier was necessary but is dispensable when it becomes advantageous to their cause; and that the upholding of the Good Friday Agreement in all its parts, not only in letter, as previously said, but in spirit, was vital during the negotiation of Brexit but apparently optional thereafter.

That, of course, applies not only to the Opposition, Sinn Féin and Alliance but to the other key players of that time who were adding such clichés, be they the UK Government of the time, Irish National Caucus voices in Washington, EU negotiators — I agree with my colleague who spoke earlier and join him in sending heartiest commiserations to France's shortest-serving Prime Minister after the events of last week — or many members of the European Parliament to whom I listened, I assure you, during my time working for my colleague who is now the Member for Upper Bann, as they declared their undying devotion to and protection of a document that, I am sure, many of them had never set eyes on. All have been shown to be hypocrites on this issue in their support for the corruption of the principle of consent and cross-community consensus that, for all its fundamental flaws, lay at the very heart of the Good Friday Agreement. Indeed, article 18(2) of the protocol decrees that any vote on the continuation of arrangements should be held:

"in a manner consistent with the 1998 Agreement",

yet Boris Johnson and subsequent UK Governments and, indeed, the parties opposite are content to casually dispense with that fundamental consent principle. Not one unionist in this place supported the protocol, yet, when it came to the democratic consent mechanism, the rigorous implementers, like others, were content deliberately and by design to dump the protections that they had baked into what was their agreement, not ours. That selective approach may win them the day, but they should know that it is noted by not only the DUP but unionist communities across Northern Ireland, which see that those parties value safeguards only for nationalists. The nature of the democratic consent mechanism by which we were brought here today is like much of the protocol and the Windsor framework: it has been imposed without the consent and certainly without the cross-community consent that, we were told, was essential to maintaining the confidence of both communities and the legitimacy of government here. On that point, the leader of the Alliance Party said that she was not sure whether we were serious in opposing the motion today. My colleagues have outlined precisely why we are very serious about the position that we are taking.

I am happy to look at the language that I use, but the Good Friday Agreement, which was built on those terms, was agreed by your party and the parties opposite, not by this party. The agreement does not hold any particular weight for me in that regard. It is something that some of the parties opposite have hung their identity on since 1998. No, on this issue, I will continue to articulate my points on the basis of what it means for the unionists in this country and the people whom I represent to have the constitution of the United Kingdom impinged upon and the protocol imposed in the way that it has been. The leader of the Alliance Party and Minister Muir referred to a lack of other options having been proposed. As colleagues have said, however, alternative arrangements, such as mutual enforcement, have been proposed. A wealth of other options were proposed during the Brexit process. It is simply a case of their being options that the Members opposite and the EU —.

Not at the moment, thank you. They were options that the Members opposite and the EU did not like. As was pointed out, the EU commissioned the study 'Smart Border 2.0'. Lars Karlsson was involved in the drafting of that document. The EU launched three documents on the same day. I was there in the room when they were launched. It was happy to cast aside 'Smart Border 2.0', because the very study that it had commissioned did not say what it wished it to say. I am not saying that the study was perfect or that there was no issue with it, but it has been built on since then, so it is untrue to pretend that no other workable options have been put forward.

I will not give way. I want to make some progress. In recent weeks, I have said — I will say it again — that we have been regaled with sanctimonious interventions and preambles that point to the damage caused by this place having been down. I have heard some talk today, Mr Speaker — sorry, Mr Speaker, I have just seen that you have replaced Madam Principal Deputy Speaker in the Chair — of this place being down for the first period of the mandate. The Members making those comments and their parties may want to reflect on how the corrosive effect of their utter contempt for unionist concerns and their enthusiastic dismantling of settled government norms here led us to that point. The way in which Mr O'Toole — he is currently not in his place — referred to my colleague Mr Buckley's comments is reflective of that. I understand that Mr Buckley's contribution was lengthy, but it represented the dearly held feelings of a significant proportion of the community in Northern Ireland who feel that the Windsor framework and the protocol have impinged on their identity and on their place in Northern Ireland and in the United Kingdom. Today, we, as MLAs, will be compelled to vote on what is a major and controversial issue, and, for the first time in decades, a vote will be decided in here on the basis of a simple majority. My colleagues have outlined how the DUP has a steady record of opposition to the measures in place and to the protocol that imposed them. My party voted against the protocol in our national Parliament and worked against it in the European Parliament before it was forced through by the Johnson Government in 2019. We believe now, as we did then, that the continued barriers to trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland are unacceptable. Their impact continues to be significantly detrimental to the economic, constitutional, social and political life of this place. We are on record as saying that, even with the progress that was made through 'Safeguarding the Union', the Windsor framework did not fix all the issues or secure all our negotiating objectives. The leader of the Alliance Party said earlier that we in the DUP had won when it came to Brexit and that we should smile about that. That is a corruption of the truth, however. The Alliance Party and others on the Benches opposite should recognise that they had some successes themselves in campaigning to thwart democracy and the result of a referendum. That is how we have landed in this place. It was never the case that we were always going to land here with Brexit. Rather, that happened as a result of people's campaigning to ensure that we landed here and that Northern Ireland was not granted Brexit on the same basis as others were granted it.

I will not give way. My colleague Mr Buckley was not afforded the same privilege, despite his being very generous with his time during his contribution. The protocol remains an unacceptable incursion on our sovereignty and on our full integration into the UK single market. Northern Ireland should have left the EU on the same basis as the rest of the UK did, and as both campaigns said that it would, despite their opposing motivations. We will continue to work towards that aim. Today's vote is flawed. As I said, it is a corruption of all that the "peace processors" have, until now, proclaimed to be essential. Nevertheless, today remains an opportunity for the DUP, in cooperation with other unionists, to demonstrate practically and give voice to the commitment to oppose that which has been imposed on us. In voting against the continuation of the current arrangements, nobody on these Benches is deluded about the likely outcome, thanks to the design of the mechanism, which represents a further capitulation by the Johnson Government. Brexit was never about making an enemy of Europe; it was about the freedom to set one's own course in the world. Acrimony with the EU, which includes some of our longest-standing allies and friends, was never the aim. We, too, would welcome a reset in relations, but not at the expense of ignoring the continuing thorn in our national flesh. The vision that the Labour Government have laid out in recent days will, no doubt, be given due consideration by my Westminster colleagues in view of the current circumstances and the impact on Northern Ireland. However, any moves forward by the Government must honour and advance commitments that have already been made to the people of Northern Ireland, particularly those that form part of the basis for the restoration of these institutions. On that basis, I say to the Government that they, too, should reflect on the corrosive effect that a failure to honour such commitments would have on trust and confidence in government, politics and these institutions. Such failure would sow instability for the future. My party secured in law a commitment to an independent review of the framework, including the areas on which there is not cross-community consent. It also secured a commitment that there would be completion of the review within six months rather than two years, as agreed under the Government's original unilateral declaration. We have said that a strengthened independent review should be the basis for Labour to honour their stated commitment to protecting the UK internal market. Again, the full suite of the Government's statutory duties should be delivered in good faith. In common with a number of the contributors today, I sit on the Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee. Each week, we are increasingly sitting through sessions on complex EU legislation on which officials invite us to lean only upon the presumption that the UK Government will probably approximately align their regulations with those that are being brought forward. We are compelled within a short time frame to make decisions without complete and necessary information. The levers available to us, as a Committee, and to the Assembly are time limited, but we often cannot possibly know if or when an impact will be felt by our constituents or local businesses. Generally speaking, some members — I appreciate that they will point to examples in recent weeks that, I hope, reflect a sustained change in approach — have been, up to now, exceptionally trusting of the idea that what is good for the EU at large will also be in our interests. That is an idealistic approach that not even member states take when considering regulations. We have little ability as yet to consider regulations in light of their cumulative effect when combined with other regulations over the course of time. The chilling effect, which was referred to today, of divergence increasing over time means that we are seeing, and will increasingly see, Great British businesses choosing not to sell to Northern Ireland. In the past two weeks, we have discussed provisions that pertain to the ability of consumers to hold a company in the EU's customs area ultimately legally responsible for product defects, even where it is not the responsible manufacturer. That is particularly important in circumstances where the manufacturer is outside the EU. That means that local companies that sell products from GB suppliers or the suppliers themselves, if they have a presence here, face increased risk and potentially increased costs. That is one example that is relevant to the work of the Committee. Colleagues who have spoken have presented many examples of the damage due to the current system, and I suspect that colleagues who are yet to speak will draw upon similar examples. While others have the ability to couch their arguments in the positive elements of anything that the EU is bringing forward and is wishing to achieve with such regulations — in this case, consumer protection — it does not take a genius to draw the lines and see how such red tape and additional burden will make GB suppliers, whether direct to the consumer or to other parts of our manufacturing base, simply decide that Northern Ireland, with its 1·8 million people, is not a big enough market on its own to warrant the additional risk and expense. As we are seeing, and will see, increasingly with the issues around Amazon and eBay, others, too, will stop supplying. To that end, we have welcomed the appointments to Intertrade UK and the independent monitoring panel. The Command Paper clearly envisaged a role for both in feeding into the work of the independent review, particularly with respect to the implementation of the internal market guarantee. We must see further work to progress the work of both bodies so that they can help to prevent the kind of disengagement that we are seeing from key businesses and, indeed, to enhance the information available to those of us who serve on the Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee.

The Government must maximise the scope of any review, and there are aspects of agreed arrangements that must be taken forward in the round. With that, I conclude my comments.

2,465 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Second assessment

Jev’s answers did not settle this record, so a second model, claude-opus-5-5, read the same text (without the MLA’s name or party) and gave its reasons on 21 October 2026. How the second assessment works

Verdict

Not flagged

Public interest or divisiveness

Mixed

Against the published rubric

The speech is a substantial argument against continuing the Windsor Framework arrangements. It covers the consent mechanism under article 18 of the protocol, alternative border proposals, regulatory divergence, product-liability rules and the independent review, which is the kind of debate on cross-community consent and trade the rubric treats as legitimate. It does contain pointed identity framing: opponents show "utter contempt for unionist concerns", "value safeguards only for nationalists", and the Agreement is "their agreement, not ours" that others have "hung their identity on". These lines come close to accusing parties of hostility towards a community, but they sit inside a substantive case rather than replacing it.

Public interest or divisiveness

Much of the contribution deals with real issues: the voting rules used, the democratic scrutiny process, and practical effects on businesses and consumers, such as GB suppliers ceasing to supply Northern Ireland. It also adds communal point-scoring, including sarcastic references to "peace processors" and claims of deliberate one-sided treatment of unionists, which deepen the sense of a communal contest. Both elements are substantial, so the effect is mixed.

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:46 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