Debate contribution: Democratic Consent Resolution

Debate contribution by Mr Paul Givan on 10 December 2024.

MLA

Mr Paul Givan

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 4716392

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Today's democratic consent motion is one of the most significant issues that the Assembly has debated or will ever debate. At one level, it is a complex and complicated matter, but, at another level, it comes down to this very simple question: does the Assembly wish to give away powers and responsibilities that were entrusted to us by those who sent us here, or are we prepared to do the job that we were elected to do? Let us be clear that democratic consent is not merely a theoretical concept but a fundamental pillar of freedom, justice and the rule of law. It ensures that Governments, institutions and leaders remain answerable to the people whom they serve. In many ways, this is a unique moment in history. Down through the centuries, many have fought and died for the franchise and the right to participate in democratic institutions. From the Chartists to the suffragettes to the civil rights movements in the United States, the direction of travel has been clear. Today, the Assembly is likely to reverse that tide of progress. Today, the Assembly is likely to vote to place more trust in those who vote for Viktor Orbán in Hungary than in the people of Northern Ireland who vote for Members of the Assembly. So much for government of the people, by the people, for the people. If only we had known a generation ago that Sinn Féin would prioritise the rules of Mrs Thatcher's landmark achievement of a European single market over the rights and sovereignty of Irish people, even Northern Irish people, to determine the laws that govern them. We might have been saved much anguish. Such a proposition would surely have been greeted by the mocking laughter of our children. It is even more shocking that Sinn Féin rushed to hand over our rights to an institution that, to quote Gerry Adams, has:

"failed the people of Ireland, North and South".

Twelve years ago, however, Sinn Féin and the same Gerry Adams told us that they were committed to ensuring that the Irish people were not subjected to the:

"anti-democratic processes being driven by the European Union".

Mary Lou McDonald echoed her party colleague, advising:

"We need a Europe of equals, not a Europe that dictates to the people".

How times have changed. You might rightly ask how it can be a Europe of equals for the people of Northern Ireland. Much ground has already been covered in the debate, and I do not wish to rehearse arguments that have already been made. In the time available, however, I want to look at a few of the key issues. I will leave others to more fully develop the arguments around some of the practical implications of the operation of the present arrangements, but let me touch on issues of fundamental concern. The motion is not only a denial of the fundamental principles of democracy but a clear abrogation of our responsibilities to the people of Northern Ireland. If passed, it represents a repudiation of the role to which we were elected as a legislature and by which we govern as an Executive. Effectively, we are saying to our constituents that others in foreign lands are better placed to do the job to which we were elected. We are passing the responsibility for hundreds of key elements of law in Northern Ireland, as set out in annex 2 to the Ireland/ Northern Ireland protocol, to those who are neither elected by nor accountable to the people of Northern Ireland. We are here because, on 31 October, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Hilary Benn, formally launched the so-called democratic consent process. However, it is not our present Secretary of State but his father whom I wish to invoke today. His father, the Rt Hon Tony Benn MP, famously posed five questions to assess the democratic credentials of any institution, which were:

"What power have you got? Where did you get it from? In whose interests do you exercise it? To whom are you accountable? And how can we get rid of you?"

He added:

"If you cannot get rid of the people who govern you, you do not live in a democratic system."

By that very basic yardstick, the motion must fail. We are giving away powers entrusted to us by those who elect us. The rights that are entrusted to us are not for us to give away. They are not our personal property to relinquish or trade away. It is instead our primary duty to preserve and protect those rights. As citizens, we must continue to value and protect the systems of accountability that underpin our democracy. To quote Andrew Jackson, the seventh President of the United States:

"the people are the only sure reliance ... of our liberty."

This motion is also a repudiation of the cross-community concept at the heart of the Belfast Agreement. One does not need to analyse the issue through a constitutional law perspective to know that, in everyday understanding, important decisions at an Assembly level often require a cross-community vote. Indeed, the petition of concern arrangements were specifically included in the Belfast Agreement and legislated for in the Northern Ireland Act 1998. This key safeguard is for both the main communities in Northern Ireland. It is an essential mechanism that ensures stability, fairness and shared government in this country, marked by its complex history and divided communities. Indeed, the cross-community concept underpins power-sharing, ensuring that nationalists and unionists are represented at every level of governance. These provisions were specifically disapplied by the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland (Democratic Consent Process) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, which specifically rewrote the cross-community protections in the Northern Ireland Act. Not only is this consent mechanism inconsistent with the underlying approach of the cross-community protections embedded in the Belfast Agreement, but its creation was a deeply cynical exercise. The Irish Government, and ultimately the European Union, only agreed to a consent mechanism by simple majority in the Northern Ireland Assembly because the electoral arithmetic made it unlikely that it could be used to extract Northern Ireland from articles 5 to 10 of the protocol. Notably, the then Taoiseach, Leo Varadkar, rejected the notion of a referendum to determine the issue as this was, and I quote, "just too dangerous". Northern Ireland was trusted with the vehicle by which it could escape the protocol only after the petrol was taken out of the engine. Rewriting the rules in the middle of the game sends out a very dangerous message. Throughout the Brexit negotiations, the EU sought to justify its approach on the basis of the Belfast Agreement. This was always at best a partial and selective reading of the agreement and at worst a deeply disingenuous approach. From 2017, the Irish Government were prepared to weaponise the Belfast Agreement to get what they wanted from negotiations. Whether that was clever politics or recklessness on their part is a matter of debate. The foolishness of the then UK Government in largely accepting that analysis is not. It was, of course, not the Belfast Agreement but the EU single market that was the concern of the European Commission. From the start of the Brexit process, the EU was prepared to play fast and loose with the peace process in Northern Ireland and showed scant concern for the unionist tradition here. Equally, unionists should not lose sight of the fact that it was not the European Union but the previous Conservative Government who were prepared, in 2019, to prioritise the purity of Brexit for Great Britain over the quality of the Union. It was Boris Johnson who did the deal with the EU to leave Northern Ireland subject to EU law, and that deal was done over the heads of, and in complete defiance of, every unionist in Northern Ireland and despite DUP opposition from the outset. That subsequent Conservative Prime Ministers sought to ameliorate the damage that had been done should not be dismissed or underestimated, but the original protocol did much of the damage. The question is: what is to be done? All is not lost. Crucially, today is not the end of the story. Arising out of the vote today, there will be an independent review of the arrangements to help restore cross-community support. I cannot guarantee what progress the promised review will make, but I note that real and tangible progress has been made since the Northern Ireland protocol was negotiated in 2019. However we measure or describe the progress that has been made, there can be no serious doubt that the Windsor framework and then 'Safeguarding the Union' represent real progress since the Northern Ireland protocol. Assuming that the motion is agreed today, there will be a further consent vote in four years' time. That means that there will be an Assembly election before MLAs will be asked to vote again. That is an opportunity for those of us who oppose the arrangements to take our case to the country on the basis of the experience of the operation of the new arrangements. To those of us who oppose the present arrangements, that should represent a challenge and an opportunity. However, I have one message for unionists who oppose the present arrangements: we must not make a difficult situation worse. We must think and act rationally and strategically. Those of us who believe in the Union and the integrity of the United Kingdom oppose the motion because we believe that it undermines the economic and constitutional fabric of our country. That will not be remedied through damaging the democratic institutions in Northern Ireland. Put simply, alternative options offer neither a prospect of removing the Windsor framework nor any strategy for a better future for Northern Ireland. That is the fundamental weakness in the argument of those who would burn this House down, with no credible path to rebuilding support for the Union. There are those who believe that, if the Executive had not been reestablished, we would have the leverage to deliver a better result now. That is a delusion. Leverage is not a constant; it is dictated and affected by circumstances. Those circumstances were favourable in the autumn of 2021 and the early part of 2022. They are not so today. The leverage that we created in 2021, which was in a different political environment, allowed progress to be made, but that leverage has delivered all that is possible. The idea that the Labour Government would provoke a confrontation with the EU to deliver a form of Brexit that is cleaner and purer than that delivered by Boris Johnson, Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak is not one that could be sustained in any serious discussion. We must choose between the alternatives that are realistically available to us, not fantasy options that have no prospect of success and would lead us down a constitutional cul-de-sac. We must not be fooled by the simple solutions that some suggest. I read in this morning's 'News Letter' a lengthy and thoughtful piece from my friend Dan Boucher. Unfortunately, although there is much to agree with in his article, it is long on analysis and history but short on solutions. That too often characterises the approach of those who point out the problems but have no credible way in which to resolve them. We must not risk the broad support that exists for Northern Ireland's place in the Union on tactics that are doomed to fail. History has taught us lessons that we would do well to remember. The events at Thornton Manor Country Estate on the Wirral in October 2019, where Boris Johnson cut a deal to, effectively, leave Northern Ireland behind, were a crucial moment in the process. We now know what many suspected at the time: Boris Johnson was never serious about a no-deal Brexit. He admitted in his memoirs that that was a bluff. That the EU had assumed as much holed his strategy below the waterline. Stefaan De Rynck, a close aide to Michel Barnier during the negotiations, correctly identified that, during the negotiations, the UK played a game of chicken with itself, due to its erroneous assessment of the negotiations. His bluff did not end well for Northern Ireland or the Union. Those who now threaten political stability in Northern Ireland are inviting unionists to repeat that failed strategy. This is a sad day for democracy and for the economic integrity of this great United Kingdom. There is no point in hiding or disguising that fact. However, it must not become a counsel of despair; we must not talk ourselves into a downward spiral and make an already difficult situation worse. Real progress has been made since the Northern Ireland protocol was published. I am confident that further progress is possible not through articles in newspapers or interviews in the media but through hard work. That is where, inch by inch, the only progress that has been made is being made.

In the past, we have proven that progress is possible, and we can do so again. Our future lies in our own hands not just through the vote on the democratic consent motion, which will be repeated in four years' time, but through support for the Union. I continue to believe that devolution can and will deliver for the people of Northern Ireland. That is why I oppose handing over powers in a wide range of areas to those who are not accountable to a single citizen of Northern Ireland. However, we must not retreat into a narrower vision of unionism where an unobtainable purity of idea is elevated over wider community support. In all likelihood, because the Government have rewritten the rules of the game, I will not be on the winning side today, but, in whatever role I have in the Chamber or elsewhere, I will do all that is in my power to ensure that the benefits of Northern Ireland's place in the United Kingdom are enjoyed. I make no apology for echoing the sentiments of perhaps the greatest of all unionist leaders, Sir Edward Carson, who said:

"From the day I first entered parliament up to the present, devotion to the union has been the guiding star of my political life."

The benefits of Northern Ireland's remaining fully within the United Kingdom are clear and undeniable. We have access to economic prosperity, political stability and global influence. Our future is brighter as part of the UK. We must continue to embrace the Union with pride and determination. We in the Democratic Unionist Party remain committed to our manifesto commitment to argue the case for the full primacy of the United Kingdom internal market and to continue to reject the undermining of its integrity. However, we do so without jeopardising wider support for the Union or these institutions in a way that has already paid and continues to pay real dividends. I, like all democrats, believe that we who make laws should be accountable to those who elect us. The Assembly should not casually dispense with the powers that have been given to us by the people who sent us here. Articles 5 to 10 of the Northern Ireland protocol have given rise to significant concerns, impacting on the economic, political and constitutional relationship of Northern Ireland with the rest of the United Kingdom. They create unnecessary divisions. They hamper trade and undermine democratic accountability, creating serious challenges for our economy, our sovereignty and our political stability. We must instead seek a solution that preserves the economic integrity of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom. We will continue to work to that end. I therefore must oppose the motion.

2,621 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

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