UK-EU Summit

Jim Allister Excerpts

Tuesday 20th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the red tape having such an impact on our small businesses. That is why I am pleased that we have made progress. We now need to make further progress as quickly as we can to ensure that businesses thrive in the markets in which they want to trade.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

I note the careful wording of the Prime Minister’s statement—it talks about Britain being “back on the world stage”, and delivering for Britain. That is not the United Kingdom. I note that his SPS deal is for Great Britain. That, of course, is because Northern Ireland has already been captured by the EU and is subject to its laws and its customs code. That is why the Irish sea border remains. As for the SPS deal as it applies to Northern Ireland, is it correct that customs declarations and customs checks will still continue on goods from GB to Northern Ireland, even though they might be SPS goods? Those checks will still operate.

[The Prime Minister]

Yesterday was a step forward in that regard. The deal allows us to reduce frustrations and barriers, which nobody wants to see. I can assure the hon. and learned Member that I genuinely want us to get into the best position we can on Northern Ireland. It mattered to me in the negotiations, and it is one of the principles that we took into them. We will continue with that work, because I know how much it matters.

UK-EU Summit

Jim Allister Excerpts

Tuesday 13th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alex Burghart]

I fully agree with my hon. Friend. The fact is that the UK has made a disproportionate, but necessary, contribution to European defence for many decades. I think that we were right to do so, and I would support our doing so into the future, but it is only right for our friends to recognise that contribution and to treat us not as an external power coming to parlay, but rather as a close and long-term friend whose loyalty has already been proved many times over.

It would also be good today to have clarification from the Government of their position on EU lawmaking. I was lucky enough to have a call with my friend Sir William Cash this morning. It was an unusually brief call, lasting only 20 minutes. [Laughter.] Sir Bill put it very clearly to me: he said that in any new arrangement with the EU it was important for us to see no EU lawmaking, no jurisdiction for the European Court of Justice and no attempt to reapply the principles of EU law in our courts, because one principle of our departure from the EU was that we would take back control of our money, our borders and our laws.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

The hon. Member is right to say that there must be no further surrender to EU law, but, in the same vein, is there not a need to recover the territorial integrity of the United Kingdom? I represent a part of the United Kingdom where in 300 areas of law it is not this House but a foreign Parliament that makes the laws. Should the starting point of a reset not be recovering the integrity of this Parliament in the territory of this United Kingdom?

[Alex Burghart]

The hon. Gentleman has made a very good point. It is one that he has made often in the House, and I look forward to his making it to the Minister in a few moments’ time.

On the subject of fish, we are clear about the fact that there should be no multi-year deal, because that would reduce the UK’s leverage in future negotiations with the EU. We should have 12 nautical miles of exclusive access. That is what our fishermen want, and it is what the Conservative party supports. There should also be fair distribution of quota schemes, and no trade barriers during disputes. My right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), the shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, has made the position very clear. This is an opportunity to defend the UK’s fishermen, and to build on the deal that we had previously from the Brexit negotiations. We should not be giving up the freedom of our fishermen.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has made that point, but the best thing for all European nations is not to try to build our own EU defence capability, but to strengthen NATO. There is an argument that we are somehow doing this through the EU so that it can strengthen NATO, but I do not think that is really the ambition of the bureaucrats in Brussels. They have a flag and a Parliament, and they want an army—a Euro army. That is what people periodically talk about, particularly the Germans and the French. They want a Euro army, but that would send the wrong signal to President Trump. Yes, we need to develop those capabilities, but let us develop them through NATO.

[Jim Allister]

Is not the hon. Member’s point put beyond all doubt by the wording of article 42 of the treaty of the EU, which expressly says that the purpose of co-operation is to arrive at common defence? Is it not therefore perfectly clear that the EU is setting itself up to have its own sovereign defence capability?

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

Yes, and when we look at the European Defence Agency and all the mechanisms that have been created, we can see that the European Defence Agency is an embryo European Ministry of Defence. That is what is intended.

Let us just suppose that, in the ideal world that Labour and the Liberal Democrats live in, this defence capability comes about. The fundamental problem is that the European Union was never originally conceived as a defence and foreign policy organisation. There are many countries in it with very different—[Interruption.] No, it was functionalism that drove the foundation of the European Communities. It was about trade and creating a single market. Defence was never in the minds of the early founders of the European Union, and it is very ill suited to the task of getting defence capability, because the institutions were not designed for that purpose. It is not in the culture of those institutions. To rely on them for our defence and security is extremely unwise. On the other hand, NATO is already very well suited to the task and does not need to be duplicated.

To put it mildly, given the political disunity in the European Union, particularly towards Trump—okay, that afflicts NATO as well—this is not an instant solution to the political problems in NATO, if those are what the European Union is seeking to resolve. We should dispense with the idea that making a defence pact with the European Union is somehow the great panacea for all the problems we face on our continent because of President Putin. On the contrary, I think it is likely to make things worse—more complicated and more bureaucratic—and it would probably make our defence industries less competitive, because they would be cocooned inside this fund, instead of competing on the on the global stage with the Americans. Incidentally, our defence procurement co-operation with the Americans remains essential. They have the lion’s share of the technology; they are way ahead of the European Union when it comes to technology.

So, why are the Government doing this? I think they have always been religiously committed to the idea of EU defence—they introduced it in the first place, in the St Malo declaration—but why are they so devoted to doing this now? Of course, it is what the European Union really wants. We are the supplicant in these negotiations. We are asking the EU for concessions, and the one thing that would really make it feel good is drawing the United Kingdom into the defence arena of the European Union.

Meanwhile, what concessions are we getting from the EU? I do not see any. It will be interesting to find out. It will not instantly reduce all trade barriers, because we are not in the single market and will not be in the single market. It will still apply all the checks, including the antiquated wet stamps that are applied to forms certifying the fitness of shellfish. Wet stamps are so last century, but the EU is still using them on customs forms. That is how backward it is. There are electronic frontiers between African countries where there are no barriers. Incidentally, that is the answer to the Northern Ireland problem.

I fully support the Opposition’s proposals, which are to question everything that the EU will demand of us and which the Government might pursue, and to reserve our ability to tear up those agreements if they are not in the national interest. The Government do not have a monopoly on the national interest. “National interest” is a subjective term—the national interest might be different in the mind of one person and in the mind of another. As far as I am concerned, we left the European Union in the national interest, because we wanted to remain a sovereign democracy, in charge of our own laws, and to be like most other countries that are not in the European Union; they get on fine. As my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) pointed out, the economy is still growing, or was growing until the Government hit it with their Budget. We have every opportunity at our feet.

One of the reasons we left the European Union—sorry to relitigate all these arguments—and left that slow-growth, high-unemployment, high-regulation, high-tax trade bloc was so that we could make deals with the high-growth, low-regulation, high-employment parts of the world, which in the end will provide us with far more business than we get from the EU. Actually, the vast majority of our trade, particularly our services trade, is outside the EU—people forget that. By being obsessed with trade with the EU, we drive our economy into a straitjacket; we are well out of that.

The Government should take away from this debate a warning. They know that they are being attacked by Reform. Those voters would probably never vote Conservative, or are less likely to vote Conservative than Labour, but they are going to Reform because they can sense the backsliding going on in this Government. If there were ever to be another referendum, I would hazard a guess that the vote would be against rejoining the European Union, so there can be no rejoining by stealth, which seems to be the Government’s policy. We will stand by the British people, and will dishonour any agreement that the Government make with the European Union that is not in our interests.

Indeed, there are parts of the withdrawal agreement that we may need to revisit—for example, in the Northern Ireland protocol. The technology has moved on, and we can move to an electronic frontier across the north-south border, without the need for checks on trade between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. One of the founding principles of the Act of Union was that there should be frontier-free trade within the United Kingdom as a whole. If the continuing development of the Northern Ireland protocol continues to impose those checks, those checks are not in the national interest, and we should reserve the right to jettison the protocol and replace it with something better.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

No one representing Northern Ireland wishes more than I do for a proper reset of the relationship with Europe. To be a proper reset, however, it must acknowledge and respect the fundamental concept of international agreements: that the agreeing parties respect the territorial integrity of each other. That is the fundamental flaw and failing of the present arrangements.

There is not, and there was not under the last Government, a requirement for the territorial integrity of the United Kingdom to be respected. That is how and why it came to be that, in my part of the United Kingdom, in 300 areas of law we are subject not to the laws of this House but to those of a foreign Parliament. The EU insisted, and alas the British Government accepted, that Northern Ireland should be under its customs code, which treats GB as a foreign country and Northern Ireland as EU territory, and that we should be in its single market and subject to all its laws. In that, we had the most dramatic refusal and repudiation of that fundamental concept of mutual acknowledgment of territorial integrity. Unless and until that is addressed in a reset, we will never have a fair deal with Europe, and that is what I would dearly like to see.

When I hear talk about dynamic alignment, it is not academic for me; we experience it every day of the week. We experience the indignity of being subject to laws that we do not make and cannot change. We are subject to the indignity of the other part of this United Kingdom being described as a foreign country whose goods must be checked coming through an international EU customs border.

If the Government are going to do an SPS deal with Europe, it inevitably falls, as it has in Northern Ireland, that we submit to the yoke of dynamic alignment with EU rules. That is the price that the EU extracted for Northern Ireland. It is the price it will extract for an SPS deal with Great Britain. Therefore, that is not the way forward. The way forward is to retrieve sovereignty over all of this country and to retrieve respect for territorial integrity.

Trade Negotiations

Jim Allister Excerpts

Tuesday 6th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Alexander]

We have spoken today of the importance of the Indian market, but it is also right to recognise that the Indian market presently sits behind some of the world’s highest barriers to trade, notwithstanding the fact that it was the UK’s 12th largest trading partner. The fact that we are tearing down so many of those tariff levels as part of this agreement will be a very practical and pragmatic offering for the kind of excellence in manufacturing that he has in his constituency and that is represented across our country.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

How can the Government make a trade deal for the whole of the United Kingdom if they do not control the trade laws for the whole of the United Kingdom? Northern Ireland is still under the control of EU trade laws. To give a practical illustration of the problem, under the UK-India trade deal any imports to Northern Ireland from India—I speak of imports, not exports—will be subject not to any agreed UK tariff but to whatever prevailing EU tariff there is on those goods, and the EU does not have a trade deal with India. Is this not another illustration of how Northern Ireland has been left behind by a protocol that has left us still in the EU?

[Mr Alexander]

The Northern Ireland’s trading relationships and its status within the United Kingdom are not altered as a consequence of the Indian free trade agreement that was reached today. The established position is exactly as the right hon. Member describes and recognises the distinctive history and significance of the Good Friday agreement—not just in the protocol but the Windsor framework. A huge amount of work has been put in by both sides of the House to try to maintain a hard-won peace in Northern Ireland, and that is not compromised by today’s agreement.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Allister Excerpts

Wednesday 30th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jo Stevens]

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. Driving down NHS waiting lists is a shared priority for both the UK and the Welsh Labour Governments. As she says, waiting list have fallen for three consecutive months as a result of our two Governments working together. Meanwhile, the Conservatives and Plaid Cymru voted against an extra £600 million for the Welsh NHS, and Reform would sell off the NHS to the highest bidder.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

Does the Secretary of State think that the imposition from tomorrow of a parcels border between Great Britain and Northern Ireland will strengthen the Union, given that parcels, business to business, from Wales or any other part of the UK to Northern Ireland, will now be subject to EU customs declarations and checks? How does that strengthen the Union?

[Jo Stevens]

I thank the hon. and learned Member for his question. As I said in reply to an earlier question, we want to make sure that trading is made easier and that we remove the red tape and barriers. Those are the discussions that we are having at the moment with the EU.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Allister Excerpts

Thursday 24th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Pat McFadden]

I will find out exactly where we are with this matter and then write to the right hon. Member.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

Under the Windsor framework, the Government, through the Cabinet Office, regularly supply data to the European Union about the number and type of checks conducted at the Irish sea border, but they refuse to provide that data to Members of this House. When I was a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly and the oversight of those checks lay with the local Department, I was able to acquire that, but now that it is under the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Members who ask those questions get a refusal of an answer. Why is that?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I am perfectly happy to look into the matter that the hon. and learned Gentleman raises. On the UK-EU reset, I very much hope that if the Government are able to secure a sanitary and phytosanitary agreement that they will reduce the number of checks on the Irish sea.

European Union: UK Membership

Jim Allister Excerpts

Monday 24th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John.

I am afraid my contribution will jar with the cosy consensus of the debate, if we should call it a debate, because has it not just been an echo chamber for the laments of two or three dozen Europhile MPs? It has not been a debate at all, but what brings us here are 130,000-odd signatures on a petition. Well, of course, what that immediately calls to mind is the contrast with the 17,410,742 British voters who made the most consequential decision in the greatest democratic decision ever made by the greatest number of people ever voting. That embarrasses them. That is why, almost two hours into this debate, this is the first time we have heard that figure, because those in this Chamber have their face set against that democratic decision.

This petition is notable in its arrogance. It does not even say, “Well, let’s have another referendum.” No—in its arrogance, it demands that we simply rejoin the EU, which the British people decided democratically to leave. I know that is an uncomfortable fact, but that is the core issue.

[Seamus Logan]

The hon. and learned Gentleman speaks of uncomfortable facts. Has he been listening to the uncomfortable facts that have been shared in this debate?

[Jim Allister]

Let me give the hon. Member and others some rather uncomfortable facts. I am delighted to tell those Euro-fanatics who gather in this hallowed hall today that only 50 of my constituents in North Antrim signed this petition. Of course that is for very good reason, because unlike the rest of you, we have continued to have to live under the EU. We have continued to be subject to the bureaucratic stranglehold of the EU single market and its customs code. What has that meant? It has meant that in over 300 areas of law we in Northern Ireland are governed by laws that we do not make and cannot change because they are made by a foreign Parliament in which we have no say. That is the product of the denial of Brexit to the people of Northern Ireland. That is how we have been left. Those are the laws that govern the single market.

I hear the moving desire of hon. Members to be back in the single market, but let me tell them what that has meant for Northern Ireland: we were told that it was the best of both worlds and a panacea, and if only we all had the best of both worlds. Well, having the best of both worlds and being able to sell into the mighty market of the EU was supposed to bring a flood of foreign direct investment into Northern Ireland. According to some enthusiasts, we were going to be the Singapore of the west, but the reality is that there has not been one foreign direct investment in Northern Ireland because of single market access.

Before people get what they wish for, I caution them that being in the single market is no panacea. As I have already illustrated, in Northern Ireland it comes at the price of being governed by laws that we do not make and cannot change. Everyone here seems to want to put the whole United Kingdom in that position. I have heard hon. Members lament American tariffs, but they want to put themselves in the club that will be most tariffed by the United States. Where is the logic in that? It really is beyond belief.

The real lesson from Northern Ireland is that the growth in our economy has come in the services sector, which is the sector that is outside EU control. Of the two sectors—manufacturing and services—the sector that has grown is the one outside EU control. The one that is still under the EU’s control is the one that has struggled and has not grown. That is a telling reminder of what it means for people to subjugate themselves in a subservient way to rules made in a foreign Parliament.

[Ms Creasy]

The hon. and learned Member is right that many of us feel desperately sad about the position that Northern Ireland was put in as a result of Brexit. However, I hate to tell him that because of the value of the Good Friday agreement, the services sector is included in the Northern Ireland protocol.

The hon. and learned Gentleman made much stir of the 50 people from his constituency who deigned to sign the petition, dismissing those who might be supportive of having a relationship with the European Union. What does he say to the 693,525 voters in Northern Ireland—the majority of voters in Northern Ireland—who voted to remain? There are many issues of contention thrown around in this debate, but if he wants to talk numbers, those numbers matter.

[Jim Allister]

Two things: the hon. Member is wrong that services fall under the Northern Ireland protocol and the Windsor framework. They are not. They are free from it, so she is simply wrong about that. On the question of Northern Ireland voting in favour of remaining, so what? [Laughter.] That was not the question on the ballot paper. The question on the ballot paper was:

“Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?”

As Members titter and congratulate each other, they might as well say, “Well didn’t London vote to remain?” So what? It was a national vote; it was not about how the regions voted, because the question on my ballot paper, as on yours Sir John, was did I want the United Kingdom to leave or to stay—that was the question. My only regret is that in my part of the United Kingdom, we were not delivered the Brexit that was voted for.

Ukraine

Jim Allister Excerpts

Monday 3rd March 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I agree with all that, and I think the House agrees with it, too.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

I note with great appreciation the order for Thales in Belfast. With Europe collectively being a long way short of self-sufficiency in defence, and with Putin more than likely to seek to exploit that deficiency, do the security guarantees required from the US effectively equate to those that would arise under article 5 of NATO? Is that the order of what we are talking about?

[The Prime Minister]

NATO membership is a form of guarantee; article 5 is a form of guarantee. There are different ways in which the guarantee can be put in place, but what is important is that it is effective and that those in Europe who are leading on this do it in conjunction with the US, so that Putin knows the severe risk that he takes if he breaches any deal that may be arrived at.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Allister Excerpts

Wednesday 26th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

I do indeed agree with my hon. Friend. That programme is doing very good work, and of course the UK Government are funding it together with the Executive. I also agree that a wide range of approaches needs to be taken, including continuing to use the full force of the law to deal with paramilitary criminality.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

After decades of illegal paramilitary organisations taking successive Governments for a ride over transition and pocketing millions of pounds along the way, the Secretary of State now wants to appoint a special envoy—a nursemaid to paramilitaries. When will this pandering come to an end, and is the Secretary of State going to accept the IRC’s grotesque proposal of moving to de-proscription, under which organisations that murdered thousands of people would ultimately be made legal? Can he at least rule that out?

On a happier note, will the Secretary of State join me in welcoming today’s announcement by the Irish Football Association and the Galgorm resort that there will be a new training facility par excellence for Northern Ireland football teams?

[Hilary Benn]

I am very happy to join in what appears to be the general consensus of welcome for the IFA’s announcement, a proposal that I discussed when I met the IFA during my time as shadow Secretary of State.

On the substantive issue that the hon. and learned Gentleman has raised, the fact is that 26 years later, people say that the paramilitary organisations should have left the stage. They are still here, despite the progress that has been made, and are still causing harm to communities. The IRC’s proposal—which I recognise is not supported by everybody—is to inquire whether there are some paramilitary organisations that do actually want to leave the stage, and whether there is merit in having a process that ensures that. However, what I announced yesterday is not a process; it is a scoping study to find out whether it is worth having one or not, which I think is the right thing to do.

Defence and Security

Jim Allister Excerpts

Tuesday 25th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I agree with my hon. Friend. These are difficult decisions with very real consequences, which I acknowledge. As an earlier contributor said, though, the alternative to action is inaction, and in the light of the last three years and particularly the last few weeks, inaction would be completely the wrong thing for our country and our continent.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

I absolutely agree with the Prime Minister that this is an important moment for our nation, and I welcome the rebalancing of expenditure towards defence. However, does he agree that the success of our national security posture will be judged not by percentages but by the strength of the deterrent that we build, and is it his abiding commitment to be unwavering in building such a deterrent?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, it is, because I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman that it is the strength of our deterrent that counts in a moment like this. I am very proud of our armed forces—those who have provided so much for so long—but now is a time to ask more of them and to step up.

Storm Éowyn

Jim Allister Excerpts

Monday 27th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Pat McFadden]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his kind comments. Of course I take this seriously. As I said to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), we want to do everything we can to get power restored for people who are without it. According to the latest figures I have seen, we have sent more than 100 engineers to Northern Ireland. That number will move. The electricity grids of Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland are physically linked, so sometimes it might make sense in connecting people to work on both sides of the border. We will respond as positively as we can to requests for generators to get help to people who need it.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

I join others in expressing the appreciation of the whole community for the hard work in the most difficult circumstances of those who have been trying to reconnect us. I also join in the condolences to the families of those who have lost their lives, including the family of a young father just outside my constituency who lost his life in an incident with a generator. I know personally some of his close relatives, and the devastation is incredible.

On the issue of mutual aid, which is more than welcome, can the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster tell us who pays for it, ultimately? Does the Treasury pick up the bill, or is the bill for the engineers, generators, chainsaws and all the rest of it ultimately passed to the Northern Ireland Executive, who seem to have been pretty ill-prepared given that they have had to go looking for chainsaws?

[Pat McFadden]

I add my condolences to the family of the person the hon. and learned Gentleman referred to close to his constituency, and to the families of anyone who has lost their life as a consequence of what has happened in recent days. I have to be candid with him: when I have been discussing requests for help for people in Northern Ireland, I have focused not on arguing about the bill, but on getting the generators, engineers, helicopters and other help that is needed, because when people are without power, they want the help as quickly as possible.