Debate contribution: Democratic Consent Resolution

Debate contribution by Mrs Diane Dodds on 10 December 2024.

MLA

Mrs Diane Dodds

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 4716487

Read the official Assembly record

Text

The reaction that we have just seen means that some Members do protest and are protesting too much and that we have hit a very sore spot. However, rigorous implementation was called for, no matter how anyone wants to dress it up or make it look. I will continue. That is not the only affront to democracy that we are dealing with today. Let me be clear: disapplying the cross-community consent mechanism violates the Belfast Agreement. All through the Brexit years in the European Parliament, I endured many long contributions from Michel Barnier, the former Brexit negotiator and now former Prime Minister of France, on his version of the Belfast Agreement. It does not matter what the Belfast Agreement actually says: they have all had their version of the Belfast Agreement in the European Union. He was very fond of telling us that he must implement the Belfast Agreement, and I quote, "in all its parts". Indeed, there was an awful lot of kerfuffle to get it inserted into motions in the European Parliament and so on at the time — it was very important — but it should be implemented "in all its parts". However, article 18(2) of the protocol actually decrees that any vote on the continuation of the arrangements should be held "in a manner consistent with" the Belfast Agreement. How European to forget it all once you decide that something else is in your interests. Here we are today, compelled to vote on the basis of a simple majority. Yes, that vote is significant and contentious. Yes, the Belfast Agreement principle of laws, which requires support from both sides of the community, should trigger the cross-community consent mechanism. That is not going to happen today, and we are going to vote, for the first time since 1998, by a simple majority. The cross-community mechanism was removed by the Conservative Government under Boris Johnson. British Governments and the European Union, purporting to uphold the Belfast Agreement in all its parts, now happily ride roughshod over that agreement with the abandonment of the cross-community mechanism. Today, I expect all shades of unionism on this side of the House to unite and show their contempt for the protocol and the way in which this vote is conducted. There is no consent from unionism for this separation of the United Kingdom, and there is no consent for the way in which the Belfast Agreement is disapplied in relation to the voting mechanism. This is designed to placate nationalism and marginalise unionism, and it is an appalling state of affairs. Northern Ireland works better when everyone is represented in the democratic process, and if you care about building a better Northern Ireland, you should be courageous and vote against the motion.

Sorry, if the Member is going to make the same point about —

— the vote, we have had that on about three occasions today.

Having outlined general objections around the issues of democracy and the legitimacy of the vote, I want to turn to some of the specifics around the motion. Today, we are voting —.

I will return to the point about the legitimacy of the vote. The Member can protest all that she wants, but in the eyes of my constituents, in the eyes of the unionists whom I represent and in the eyes of the general people whom I represent, a vote in a Parliament —.

If I am allowed to develop the point, which is very important, the point is this: in the eyes of the people to whom I talk, in the eyes of the people who object to the protocol and in the eyes of people who do not want to be ruled by Brussels and do not want to apply European law to everything that they do, there is no legitimacy to a vote that does that. The technicalities are one thing, but how it is viewed in the eyes of the unionist community is an entirely different one. Today, we are voting on articles 5 to 10 of the protocol. Those apply the EU customs code and EU single market rules for goods in Northern Ireland. We were told that this was necessary to protect the EU single market and to avoid a hard border. We had people, probably including the First Minister, out knocking down walls. We had Leo Varadkar waving pieces of paper, threatening what would happen if we had any kind of border. However, what they have created — what these rules have created — is an Irish Sea border that pervades all aspects of our life. It necessitates declarations, checks and reporting of data on goods crossing from one part of the United Kingdom to the other. Article 7 relates to the technical provisions and standards of goods placed on the Northern Ireland market, and my colleague — the Member who spoke previously — articulated that more than I could. Article 8 means that EU VAT rules continue to apply in Northern Ireland, and article 10 means that EU state aid rules apply to subsidies related to the trade in goods.

We are totally under EU law for sanitary and phytosanitary measures. Those may appear to be dry enough legal points, but they impact on our businesses, our pets and our agri-food industry. The onerous nature of those laws means that we have a significant trade diversion, and many companies in GB are no longer willing to put up with the bureaucracy and expense that comes with servicing the Northern Ireland market. The biggest manifestation of that is the installation of border checkpoints at Larne, Belfast and Warrenpoint harbours.

Despite all the talk, Great Britain remains, by far, our most important market. That is true for the goods that we sell into that market as well as for the goods that we buy from it for manufacturing and retail. A growing number of GB retailers no longer sell into Northern Ireland, citing the cost of bureaucracy and of labelling as the reasons for that. The issues are diverse: they cover many sectors and include the supply of veterinary medicines, the sale of seeds to consumers, bans on plants, divergence and type approval for vehicles. My colleague Mr Buckley entertained Members with the full list, but I will not do that at this time of the evening. The border is not being simplified. Rather, it is getting harder. On Friday 13 December, the introduction of the EU general product safety regulation will take that to another level. Many small retailers will not be able to comply with it and will therefore simply cease to service the Northern Ireland market. Just last weekend, one of my young constituents sent me a message from a leisurewear company that she orders from in another part of the United Kingdom. The message from the company read:

"We are so sad to have to stop selling to Northern Ireland and the EU. It is unfortunately something that is out of our control right now, and there is not much information out there on how to navigate this, especially as a small business."

That is only one example of the many businesses that can no longer supply the Northern Ireland market as a direct result of the divergence in law for goods between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. It is destroying consumer choice and increasing costs. It is an appalling situation, and one that, I suspect, Alliance, the SDLP and Sinn Féin will endorse in the Chamber tonight to the detriment of their constituents. We have all heard the cries of, "But we've access to two markets" and, "We're uniquely placed". The Prime Minister said it, Joe Biden said it and lots of Members said it. When, however, my colleague asked the chief executive of Invest NI whether he could give an example of a company that had set up in Northern Ireland because of dual market access, he was unable to do so, yet tonight we have the Opposition leader and the SDLP Member for Foyle trying to soften his words by saying, "Well, you know, I talked to him afterwards. It's because companies don't know about it". Companies either have or have not heard about it, as they have had four, coming on five, years to use the provision. The chief executive of Invest NI says that he cannot find such a company.

I will.

It was not mentioned in the 10X strategy because I did not see that there was yet value in it, as was the case for the chief executive of Invest NI. If we all explode about that, that is part of the problem. Although the consent motion is applicable to limited parts of the protocol, we should not be blind to the far-reaching impact of article 2. The courts and the rights industry have taken an expansive approach to that article and the interpretation of its "no diminution of rights" phrase. That phrase has constrained the Government in their attempts to legislate for Northern Ireland on such fundamental issues as immigration. It is an area of influence in the protocol whose impact on our daily lives is set to grow and grow.

I want to address a couple of issues that the leader of the Opposition brought up on the benefits of the EU. He cited PEACE PLUS. It is amazing that £1 billion will be invested in communities in NI, but what the leader of the Opposition did not tell us is that the contribution from the UK Government to that £1 billion is £730 million and that the other contributors are the European Union and, to a much lesser extent, the Republic of Ireland.

I hope that that was an acknowledgement of my point on PEACE PLUS, because it is important to be accurate. If we say that the European Union's largesse is so amazing, we should acknowledge that 75% of the PEACE PLUS funding comes from our Government. That is an important point to acknowledge. I agree with the Member about the Levelling Up Fund and the other funds. I do not think that the Government have made a great job of making sure that communities in Northern Ireland are well served. I will say something more on that that may be a little more controversial, but that is always the danger of speaking off the cuff.

It is really difficult for the Executive, because, in many ways, some of those funds do not align with Executive policy, and it is therefore hard and much less coherent to implement them. Those issues need to be addressed. During the debate, we heard that there was no alternative. During my time in the European Parliament, I was a member of the Constitutional Affairs Committee. I went to that Committee with my colleague, as usual, to take part in the debate. The Committee had commissioned a report on how to manage borders and brought to the meeting the distinguished expert who had authored it. He had a lot of experience in managing the border with Norway and so on. That expert, Lars Karlsson, talked about mutual enforcement and the management of a border without having a physical presence on the ground. Guess what the Constitutional Affairs Committee did? It quickly got the report out of the road, swept it under the carpet as quickly as it could and dismissed its findings as magical thinking, yet it had been written by one of the foremost experts on the subject in the world. I will also address the idea that the protocol protects us from the excesses of everything and the problems of Brexit. Thanks to the protocol, we are setting up barriers to our most important market for goods that come into Northern Ireland for manufacturing and retail. That is seen in the fact that the value of the sale of goods from GB has dropped. I think that one of the Sinn Féin Members — I cannot remember who — quoted the Northern Ireland composite economic index. Let us look at what it says on the subject. It says:

"The value of goods sales from Great Britain to Northern Ireland dropped by 2·4% in 2022".

That is a reflection of the complex issues that there are in bringing goods for retail or manufacturing across to Northern Ireland. The same report tells us that manufacturing input was down by 1·1%. Those are issues with goods and with the competitiveness of our companies. That was for the second quarter of this year. That is eight consecutive quarters in which we have suffered a decline in manufacturing output. I do not think that the protocol protects us from an awful lot, yet the service sector, which is not managed by the protocol, grew by 0·4%. It is important to get the reality of those statistics. In concluding, I urge Members who care about Northern Ireland, who care about Northern Ireland going forward and who realise that there is a large bloc of unionists who do not consent to the protocol or the way in which the vote is taking place, if they have a care or a thought for that, to be courageous and vote against the motion, sending a strong collective message that, as indicated by my colleague from South Antrim, we should do better and that we can manage things in Northern Ireland better together.

2,241 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

Most of the speech addresses the substance of the democratic consent vote: the effect of articles 5 to 10 on trade, the new product safety regulation, GB retailers withdrawing, manufacturing statistics and the true source of PEACE PLUS funding. Its argument about cross-community consent is the kind of constitutional point the rubric treats as legitimate. However, some lines go further than that: the vote is "designed to placate nationalism and marginalise unionism", there is a jibe about "the rights industry", and "How European to forget it all". These lines claim a community is being deliberately targeted, but they are a minor part of a long speech whose main thrust is practical and constitutional.

Public interest or divisiveness

The speech mainly sets out reasons to oppose the motion, citing practical effects on businesses, consumers and the agri-food sector, with figures and a constituent's example. It also frames the vote in communal terms, contrasting unionism and nationalism, and appeals to "all shades of unionism" to show "contempt", which deepens a communal divide. It does, though, end by stressing that "everyone is represented" and that Northern Ireland can be managed "better together". Both strands are substantial, so it 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