Backing Business to Create Economic Growth

Debate between Ben Coleman and Jim Allister

Monday 18th May 2026 Commons Chamber

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

It is strikingly surreal to be debating a King’s Speech from a Government who are patently on their last legs. This is the King’s Speech of a Prime Minister who is working out his notice in Downing Street. It is equally surreal that after the biggest electoral trouncing that any Government have ever had, particularly in red wall seats, and in areas that voted strongly pro-Brexit, the Prime Minister thinks that the answer is more Europe. Dear help his wit, if that is his solution. Of course, that is also the solution of the wannabe Prime Ministers who are queuing up, bristling with European credentials—although I notice that Andy Burnham is feverishly trying to cover his Europhile tracks, because he thinks they might not go down too well in Makerfield. It is the height of folly for any Government who have been so trounced in an election in those areas to think that the answer is more Europe, but we are told that that answer will come in the European partnership Bill. I suspect that it will be a mere shell of a Bill, loaded with Henry VIII powers, so that as we increasingly align with the EU, this House will not even have the right to scrutinise those measures.

What does “dynamic alignment” mean? I can tell the House what it means, because I represent a part of the United Kingdom that, sadly, has continued to be dynamically aligned with the EU. It means that we become a supplicant rule taker. It means that we are subject to laws that we do not make and cannot change. It means that laws of absolute folly impose costs on our constituents. Let me give but one example. Northern Ireland is subject to the European vehicle type regulations. What does that mean? It means that buying a new car in Northern Ireland costs £4,000 more than it does in Great Britain, because it can be imported to and used in Northern Ireland only if it meets EU standards. That is what it is to be a supplicant rule taker in the United Kingdom.

[Ben Coleman]

The sanitary and phytosanitary rules, which are being discussing and negotiated with the European Union, will be implemented by the European partnership Bill. Does the hon. and learned Member not accept that that will give us a seat at the table, when it comes to developing food and drink standards? Does he not also take a certain amount of pleasure from the fact that the Bill will remove the food and drink trade barriers between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, which arise from Northern Ireland’s effective membership of the European single market?

[Jim Allister]

I am sorry the hon. Member is so ill informed. Let us take the SPS deal. The Government are seeking an SPS deal not between the United Kingdom and the EU, but for GB and the EU. Why? Because, shamefully, in all SPS measures, the Government are going to leave Northern Ireland subject to the jurisdiction and sovereignty of the EU. It would not be so bad if they were saying that they will have an SPS deal to take back sovereignty over SPS matters in Northern Ireland, but they do not even have the courage to say to the EU, “If we’re going to align, we’re going to make the laws for the whole United Kingdom.” They are prepared to continue to make Northern Ireland subject to the foreign jurisdiction of the EU.

What does that mean, and what will dynamic alignment mean for Great Britain as well as Northern Ireland? It will mean huge disfranchisement of the people of this United Kingdom. In Northern Ireland, there are over 300 areas of law in which we do not make and cannot change the laws; they are made by a foreign Parliament. This Government are going to mirror that for the whole United Kingdom. That means that the people we represent cannot elect anyone to make those laws; they are disfranchised. Disfranchising is the very antithesis of democracy, yet it is the democratic price of dynamic alignment. What about the financial price? How much are this Government going to pay the EU to be a supplicant rule taker? It will be tens of millions of pounds, I am quite sure, but the Government have not wanted to tell us. That is the challenge: let them tell us how much it is going to cost financially.

I want to comment on one other Bill. The energy independence Bill will wilfully shut down our oil and gas industry. Only the deluded would want to produce a plan that will make us weaker, poorer and more dependent on others to meet our energy needs. Here we have a Government saying, “Let’s choose to leave billions in value under the sea, so we can squeeze our taxpayers for the money that is required to buy oil and gas from a foreign Government.” Where is the logic in that? It is the ultimate delusion, and it is because of such delusions that this Government are heading for the exit.

European Union (Withdrawal Arrangements) Bill

Debate between Ben Coleman and Jim Allister

2nd reading
Friday 6th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Jim Allister]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Those of us who are looking for a solution are supporters of this Bill, because we cannot go on as we are. Those who think that it is okay to subjugate part of their own territory are opposed to this Bill. They are quite content with the colonisation of part of our territory. In constitutional terms, where we have ended up is that Northern Ireland is no longer a full part of the United Kingdom. Why? It is because we are not our own masters in 300 areas of law and that a foreign jurisdiction makes those laws. What does that create? It creates what is called, in constitutional terms, a condominium: Northern Ireland is ruled in part by UK laws and in part by foreign laws. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) finds that hilarious—sorry, it is not hilarious to be subjected to that.

[Ben Coleman (Chelsea and Fulham) (Lab)]

I find myself surprised to agree to an extent with the former leader of the Conservative party, the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith): we need to move away from some of the ridiculous, extreme language. There is no reason why the European Union would want to colonise Northern Ireland. Are we not talking about a sensible agreement that does not seek to impose sovereignty but instead seeks simply to avoid a hard border on the island of Ireland, to safeguard the Good Friday agreement in all its dimensions and, at the same time, protect Northern Ireland’s place in the UK and in the UK internal market? Should we not recognise that and stop using extreme language that does nothing to take the debate sensibly forward?

[Jim Allister]

The whole purpose of this Bill is to restore equilibrium and to get us to a point at which we have a sensible relationship based upon mutual respect, not on the grabbing of the sovereignty, one from the other. That is where we have got to. The hon. Member may not like to face up to it, but a whole raft of jurisprudence and lawmaking has been removed from within the reach of this United Kingdom and placed within the control of a foreign body, and that is not the basis for a sustainable solution.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Allister]

I have been very generous in giving way. In a way I am not assisting my cause, because I know Government Members want to talk the Bill out. I would rather see them take a stand on whether they are for or against the subjugation of sovereignty within the United Kingdom. I am going to move on and deal with these issues.

The hon. Member for Walthamstow referred to my taking a case to the Supreme Court. Why would I not? It is the Supreme Court of my United Kingdom. Why would I not take a case to the Supreme Court and test the laws that relate? I remind the House again that what the Supreme Court had to hold is that, because of the protocol so enthusiastically supported by Labour Members, Northern Ireland’s place in the United Kingdom has been subjugated. The Supreme Court held that the fundamental building block of article 6 of the Acts of Union is in suspension because of the import of the protocol.

Some tell us, “Well, we don’t want to face these issues.” There is no option, we are told, because of the Belfast agreement. I have even read and heard people say, “The Belfast agreement prohibits a border on the island of Ireland.” I hold the agreement in my hand. I have read it many times. Perhaps someone could direct me: where in this document does it say that there cannot be a customs border on the island of Ireland? Where is it? It is not there! We already have a currency border, a VAT border, a tax border. Nowhere in the Belfast agreement does it say that you cannot have a customs border at the international boundary of the United Kingdom—nor should it. And then I am told, “This would breach international law if you did not have the protocol.” That is not correct either. A fundamental premise of international law is respect for territorial integrity. What have I been talking about for the last hour, if it has not been about respecting territorial integrity? That is the fundamental premise of international law.

It all goes back to the General Assembly of the United Nations declaration on principles of international law. What does it say? It says that territorial integrity is key, and that the declaration constitutes the basic principles of international law. It says:

“Every state shall refrain from any action aimed at…disruption of the national unity or territorial integrity of any other state.”

If only that had been adhered to. The declaration says:

“Where obligations under international agreements are in conflict with the obligations of this charter, the obligations of this charter shall prevail.”

So the fundamental principle is respect for territorial integrity. That is the governing principle of international law, so when an agreement comes into play that defies the fundamental requirement to respect territorial integrity, that agreement falls, not international law.

[Ben Coleman]

Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

[Jim Allister]

No, I am going to make some progress.

I strongly refute the fallacy that to depart from the Windsor framework is to breach international law. On the contrary, to perpetuate the infringement of our territorial integrity is to breach international law itself and, indeed, the Belfast agreement, which was built on consent, of which there has been none in respect of the current arrangements. The correct application of international law is to the effect that agreements that contradict the regulating principles, including respect for territorial integrity, are themselves the villains of the piece.

Having set out everything that is wrong, let me come to the solution. The Government have always told us that we cannot conduct sanitary and phytosanitary checks away from the border. It cannot be done, so we must have a border—in our case, in the Irish sea. But this week a statutory instrument was laid before this House that does exactly that. It does it for goods that come from the EU, via Northern Ireland, to GB. It says that the goods can be checked wherever they arrive, such as at factories or other premises; they do not have to be checked at the border. If we can do that for goods coming through Northern Ireland to GB, why can we not do it in reverse? Of course we could check goods without tampering with sovereignty; we could do so anywhere within the territory of the United Kingdom. It is not the impracticability of carrying out the necessary checks that is the problem; it is the fact that under the surrender of sovereignty it has been insisted that they are carried out in the Irish sea border.

That brings me to clauses 16 to 18 and the concept they would permit of mutual enforcement. I readily accept that the clauses draw heavily on the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill 2022—which found the approval of the previous Parliament—but they are none the worse for that. What they do is simple: they say that two respecting neighbours—that is what I hope the United Kingdom and the EU are—with the necessary trust between each other can operate a system where they mutually check the goods flowing through their territory to ensure they meet the standards of the recipient territory. That is a fundamental tenet of much of international trade. It is something that can be built upon in respect of this matter that the United Kingdom says, “Yes, we know the EU wants to protect, it tells us, its single market and, yes, we want to protect our single market, so we will undertake, by virtue of criminal sanction for those who do not, to check that goods flowing from our factories to your consumers, from our territory to your territory, meet the standards you set, and we expect you to do the same.” That can be done without any of the paraphernalia that we presently have.