Debate contribution: The Animals (Identification, Records, Movement and Enforcement) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2025: Prayer of Annulment
Debate contribution by Mr Timothy Gaston on .
- MLA
- Mr Timothy Gaston
- Party at the time
- Traditional Unionist Voice
- Date
- 24 February 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- The Animals (Identification, Records, Movement and Enforcement) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2025: Prayer of Annulment
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4813543
Read the official Assembly record
Text
The latest ruling by our colonial masters that our livestock can no longer bear UK ear tags but must, because of the protocol, have ear tags with EU designation XI, is yet another working of foreign rule in Northern Ireland. The root of the matter is that Northern Ireland, uniquely in the UK, is subject to the EU's animal health regime and laws. I say this gently to those who tabled the prayer of annulment: the very fact that you have had to do so is a concession that the DUP returned to the Assembly under false pretences. I remind the House that, in the aftermath of the dud Donaldson deal, Gavin Robinson wrote an article in the 'News Letter' that carried the headline:
"DUP set out to remove internal trade border in the Irish Sea — and we’ve achieved exactly that".
He later boasted that the sea border would be gone by the autumn of 2024. It is now 24 February 2025, and the sea border is still here; indeed, it hardens by the day. Shame on those who lied to the unionist people, but shame, too, on those who championed the division of the United Kingdom through the rigorous implementation of the protocol. The protocol continues to inflict unnecessary additional costs on farmers. Now, Great Britain, which, historically, we have traded freely with, is treated as a third country. I hear some in the House claim that the protocol is because of Brexit. We have heard that here today from the leader of the Opposition.
The business before us proves the opposite: Northern Ireland did not get Brexit. If we had got it, we would have left with the rest of the UK. As the prayer of annulment illustrates, the protocol means that we remain in the EU single market and customs union and, consequently, trade with GB might as well be trade with Argentina.
Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I will briefly respond to Mr O'Toole. The reason for the protocol and the Windsor framework is that Northern Ireland did not get Brexit. If we had got Brexit, there would be no protocol and no Windsor framework. I will go back to the motion on the prayer of annulment. The SR is about aligning our farming industry closer with the Irish Republic and driving a further wedge between Northern Ireland and the rest of our Union. It is no surprise to me that the nationalist and republican Alliance is the chief cheerleader for the SR. We have seen that from the Minister who is pressing for it. I am glad that the DUP has tabled the prayer of annulment — I will supporting — but we have to go back to why it is needed. It is needed because the protocol and the Windsor framework are still in place. Those are the very things that the current DUP leader said the DUP had got rid of. That was clearly not the case. I hope that in future debates, the DUP will again find its energy and take the fight to the Government. Until the protocol and the Windsor framework are scrapped, Northern Ireland will continue to be held back by its colonial masters. The SR is only a simple outworking of that, but, for the farming industry, it is a big issue when it comes to tags on sheep and cows. This is a small example, but there are many more to come. The protocol and the Windsor framework must go. Only then will Northern Ireland be able to move forward.
595 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Awaiting analysis
This record has not been analysed yet. It is not counted in any total until it has been assessed.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.