Windsor Framework

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the Windsor framework.

When the Windsor framework was introduced, it was the original protocol by another name, because it made no substantive changes to the original text. It was portrayed, sold and packaged as a tremendous opportunity for Northern Ireland. Some time later, we even had the President of the United States, President Biden, talk extravagantly about $6 billion of awaiting investment in Northern Ireland. We had acolytes of the Government talk about Northern Ireland becoming the Singapore of the western hemisphere, and it seemed that no boast was too large to make.

The reality is very different, however, and matters rather came down to earth with a bump just a couple of weeks ago, when Invest Northern Ireland representatives appeared before a Stormont Committee. Remember that the Windsor framework was supposed to unleash an avalanche of foreign direct investment into Northern Ireland because—we were told—our access to the single market of the European Union was the panacea for all things economic. The witness from Invest NI had to confess that there would be no uptake in foreign direct investment, and the framework was not producing the results that were claimed.

There is a very simple reason for that: the counterbalance to accessing the European single market is the fettering of our links to our GB supply market. In order to have that access to the foreign single market of the EU, we had to subject ourselves to EU law. Its customs code says that, with GB not being in the EU but Northern Ireland being treated as an EU territory, GB has to be regarded as a foreign country, hence the erection of the obnoxious border in the Irish sea for the bringing of goods from GB to Northern Ireland. The counterbalance to that alleged wonderful access to the EU single market was the building of a border to fetter trade from GB, and that is why the framework has not produced that magical foreign investment. Anyone looking at investing thinks about not just where they will sell their goods, but where they will get their raw materials from. If the raw material supply line is fettered by an international customs border governed by foreign law—and that is what it is—they are going to think twice about that, and obviously they have thought twice. All the proposals and packaging largely turned out to be insubstantial spin.

The boast was that Northern Ireland would have the best of both worlds—the European market and the UK market. Would the hon. and learned Member accept that all the evidence says that, even apart from just the undemocratic nature of laws being imposed on us, businesses are facing huge tax burdens, where they have to pay taxes and then claim them back? They have been shut off from their markets and cannot get supplies, and there are still many sectors of the economy that cannot get supplies from GB.

It has infected every sector, and none more so than the farming sector, which is topical today. Northern Ireland’s veterinary medicines are now under the regime of the EU, and we are facing a cliff edge in that regard—there could be a cut-off of supply from our primary market of veterinary medicines very shortly.

I commend the hon. and learned Member for securing the debate. He is right to mention farming. Does he agree that our farmers, who have been decimated by the inheritance tax proposals, will not be able to access state aid, while farmers on the mainland can apply for and get that aid? The Government must do the right thing: remove the protocol and return Northern Ireland to the UK in every way.

I agree with that. Of course, the protocol contains an EU cap on the amount of funding that can be given to farming. All the things that the hon. Member says are correct.

All that flows out of one fundamental point: the protocol and Windsor framework mean that, in 300 areas of law, Northern Ireland is now subject to laws made not in this place or in Stormont, but in a foreign Parliament by foreign parliamentarians—the parliamentarians of the EU. That is such an assault on the enfranchisement of our constituents—it is, rather, their disenfranchisement —and on basic constitutional and democratic accountability. It is something, I would suggest, that no Member of this House would contemplate for one moment for their constituents, and yet those of us who represent Northern Ireland, as well as our constituents, are expected to accept that we should be impotent when it comes to making the laws that govern much of our economy.

I thank the hon. and learned Member for securing the debate. Does he agree that the Windsor framework is ethically flawed in its treatment of businesses and the people of Northern Ireland? In opposing it, Members should take inspiration from Gladstone’s belief that it is never politically right to do that which is morally wrong.

That is a model that I am more than familiar with. It has manys an application, and one such fitting application is here.

Let me return to the issue of the 300 laws. Those are not incidental laws, but laws that shape and frame much of our economy: how we manufacture, package, sell and trade our goods, and much besides. Of particular political significance is the fact that those economic laws are now identical to those that prevail in the Irish Republic. Under the framework, a situation has evolved whereby Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic are governed by identical economic laws in those 300 areas. Of course, that is about building the stepping stone to an all-Ireland economic area, which was always the intent of the protocol. That gives it an added offensive political dimension.

The very concept that 300 areas of EU law—not our law—should be imposed on us, as if we are a colony—because that is what it is like—is offensive in the extreme. Of course, it is said, “Ah, but wasn’t the Windsor framework about protecting the Belfast/Good Friday agreement?” The Windsor framework has driven a coach and horses through the Belfast agreement. The fundamental modus operandi of the Belfast agreement was that, because of Northern Ireland’s divided past, any big or constitutional issues would have to be decided on a cross-community vote—in other words, a majority of both nationalists and Unionists. That is in section 4(5) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. However, in respect of the Windsor framework, that was expunged.

In a couple of weeks, we will have an astounding situation in which the Northern Ireland Assembly, which elects MLAs—Members of our Legislative Assembly—will be asked to disavow their power to legislate for Northern Ireland in these 300 areas. They were never asked in the first place, but they are now going to be asked, for the next four years or more, to disavow their ability on behalf of their constituents to make laws in those 300 areas and surrender that sovereignty and right to a foreign Parliament and foreign politicians. The laws have not even been dreamt up yet, because in the next four years who knows what the EU will decide is good for itself—and, coincidentally, for us? Democratically elected Assembly Members are meant to vote to sign away their democratic rights, on behalf of their constituents, and endorse whatever comes down the track. Never mind what it is; we are just going to accept it like colonial patsies, which we now are under the protocol.

The hon. and learned Gentleman knows where I stand on this issue. I share his concerns about the Windsor framework, the protocol and the impact they are having on businesses, consumers and the constitutional future of Northern Ireland within this great United Kingdom. Does he agree that those parties who hold up the Belfast agreement as the be-all and end-all are the very same people who are now content to allow a majority vote? That has not happened in 50 years, and it runs absolutely contrary to the Belfast agreement, which the protocol is supposed to uphold.

Yes; for the first time in over 50 years, we are going to have a majoritarian vote on a key issue, which, of course, has immense constitutional significance. That is why the Supreme Court of this land had to rule that the effect of the protocol was to put into suspension article VI of the Acts of Union, which is supposed to guarantee us all within this kingdom the same unfettered trade rights. Obviously, if we build a border that partitions and fetters trade, it cannot be said that there are the same constitutional and trading rights. Yet on that fundamental issue, we are going to have a majoritarian vote.

The message to Unionism—it is a very chilling message—is that cross-community votes were only ever about protecting nationalism; they were never about protecting Unionism. Unionists are just meant to suck it up, because this is the way forward. That is unacceptable. On behalf of those who sent me here believing that I was being sent here as a legislator, and sent Members to the Northern Ireland Assembly believing they were being sent there as legislators, I abhor and protest against the fact that in the next few weeks, we will have that obnoxious, obscene vote to remove from the people of Northern Ireland and their representatives the right to have a say in over 300 areas of law that govern them. There has never been a greater act of disenfranchisement of voters anywhere within this United Kingdom. It is wholly incompatible with the basic tenets of democracy.

People say, “How then do we handle the border?” Yes, there is a challenge in an interfacing border between EU and non-EU members, but the way to handle it is not through this constitutional Union-dismantling monstrosity; it is to return to the basic elements that govern much of world trade. We should mutually respect the laws, requirements and trading demands of those with whom we are trading. We should mutually enforce, from one country to another, the standards and requirements of the country to which we are exporting. If we do that, we do not need the Irish sea border, or a border on the island of Ireland. It should be backed up with criminal sanction so that, if someone does trade in breach of the requirements of the recipient country, they face a penalty. That is how it should be done, but it was not done, simply because the EU saw an opportunity to make Northern Ireland the price of Brexit. We continue to pay that intolerable price.

What a pleasure it is to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I congratulate the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) on securing the debate. It is good to see so many colleagues from Northern Ireland in the Chamber. All of us will agree on one thing: the importance of Northern Ireland to our Union.

The hon. and learned Member made with great passion a number of points that are familiar to me and others. In return, I say that the Government are committed to the implementation of the Windsor framework in good faith. We are also committed to protecting Northern Ireland’s place in the United Kingdom and in the UK internal market. The arrangements made under the “Safeguarding the Union” Command Paper to further smooth the flow of goods are also intended to reaffirm in law Northern Ireland’s constitutional place in the UK internal market. The Government are clear that the Windsor framework arrangements, together with the steps taken under “Safeguarding the Union”, respect Northern Ireland’s unique circumstances and, crucially, they do so in a manner that is compatible with international law.

Let me say gently to the hon. and learned Gentleman that we have spent about nine years as a nation grappling with the problem—he referred to it as a challenge; I describe it as a problem—of how to protect the integrity of the UK’s internal market, avoid a hard border on the island of Ireland, and respect the legitimate interests of our friends and neighbours in Brussels when it comes to the protection of the integrity of their single market. Those are the three things that had to be reconciled. Throughout that process, people have said, “There is another way you can do it. You can have mutual enforcement; you can have this, that and the other.” Those proposals were, during the height of the Brexit negotiations, referred to rather disobliging by others as “magical thinking”, but—

The magical thinking originated within the European Commission. It was those in the European Commission who first postulated the idea of mutual enforcement, only to be shot down by an agenda from Dublin and the other European countries. The very genesis of it came because it was seen as a viable proposition—and why is it not a viable proposition to mutually enforce the requirements on trade going either way?

For my many and varied sins, I spent a number of years chairing the Brexit Select Committee. We looked at all of these things at great length, and I have to say to the hon. and learned Gentleman on the basis of that experience that nothing hoved into view that would address the central question: how to maintain an open border—one of the very few things that everybody agreed on during Brexit was that there could not be checks or infrastructure at the border, for reasons that all of us in the Chamber well understand—while ensuring, as a good neighbour, that the European Union can be confident that goods arriving in Northern Ireland, which could then move freely into the EU by crossing the border into the Republic, comply with the rules of its single market.

The Secretary of State was elaborating on the problems we have to grapple with. Does he agree that there are just three ways of dealing with those problems? One is to ignore them in the hope that they will go away. The second is to keep complaining about them but not doing anything about them. The third is to actually work at resolving them, and that is what all of us, but principally His Majesty’s Government, should be doing.

I hope it will not come as a surprise to the hon. Gentleman if I say that I agree with him. Complaining and ignoring does not get us very far. He anticipates what I am about to come on to: the progress we have seen as a result of the Windsor framework.

I thank the Secretary of State for getting to the point where he talks about progress, but I remind him, as he will have heard this morning, that every Ulster MP in Westminster Hall today rails against the fundamental impediment to our constitutional position and the overarching framework that has been imposed upon us against our will. But we worked on solutions and reached arrangements and agreements with the Government in “Safeguarding the Union” about ensuring the movement of goods within our UK internal market, which he supported when he was in opposition, and those agreements need to be honoured. While deadlines have slipped, there is a huge imperative for him and his Government to respond appropriately and earnestly implement the very things that saw a return to devolution in Northern Ireland.

I have great respect for the right hon. Gentleman, and he and I have had many discussions about progress on implementing the commitments made in “Safeguarding the Union”. He can see the progress that has been made, and he and I have discussed issues where there is work in progress.

By the way, the original protocol, which had many flaws and difficulties, and the Windsor framework negotiated by the previous Government, which represents a considerable improvement, were both approved democratically by this Parliament. The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim argues that they were imposed from Brussels, but it was this Parliament that decided the way to reconcile the choices—impossible choices, in a way—that leaving the European Union created. Frankly, I would not have started from here, as I think he well understands, but this is a consequence of a decision taken by the British people, and Parliament decided to put these arrangements in place. To reject the idea that there is an issue that needs to be addressed is not the responsible thing to do, and therefore the Windsor framework represented a considerable step forward.