![\"PA](\"https:\/\/ichef.bbci.co.uk\/news\/480\/cpsprodpb\/fcfd\/live\/e0483d50-b2ff-11ef-842c-170e37f7cefa.jpg.webp\")
PA Media<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\nMPs have clashed over Traditional Unionist Voice (TUV) leader Jim Allister’s proposed law which seeks to overturn Northern Ireland’s post-Brexit trading arrangements.<\/p>\n His private member bill aims to replace the Windsor Framework, which governs trade between Northern Ireland and Great Britain.<\/p>\n Allister described the deal between the last government and the European Union as an “undemocratic plundering of the Northern Ireland statute book”.<\/p>\n The European Union (Withdrawal Arrangements) Bill was debated for nearly five hours on Friday in the House of Commons.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n It was the start of its second reading stage, which is due to resume next year.<\/p>\n The bill was co-sponsored by all of Northern Ireland’s unionist MPs alongside the former Conservative leader Iain Duncan Smith, Labour’s Graham Stringer, and Reform UK’s Nigel Farage and Richard Tice.<\/p>\n The Windsor Framework was agreed in 2023 following unionist concerns over trade checks under the original post-Brexit deal, the Northern Ireland Protocol.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n Speaking in the Commons, Allister said his bill was about “fixing the foundations” which had been “disturbed and dislodged” by the trade arrangements.<\/p>\n He told MPs that 300 areas of law affecting Northern Ireland had been “surrendered” to the European Parliament.<\/p>\n “That is not just a democratic deficit, it is undemocratic plundering of the Northern Ireland statute book by the EU,” he said.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n Northern Ireland Office minister Fleur Anderson said the “only workable deal” was the Windsor Framework.<\/p>\n She told MPs the idea of mutual enforcement has been described by the EU as “magical thinking”.<\/p>\n Anderson said that “nowhere in the world does mutual enforcement happen in trading regulations wholesale between countries”.<\/p>\n At some points in the debate, Allister said it seemed to be “a matter of humour” to some members on the Labour benches.<\/p>\n Robin Swann of the Ulster Unionist Party (UUP) also said he was “quite concerned” about the attitude of some MPs.<\/p>\n Labour MP Stella Creasy said she hoped Allister would “recognise it’s not laughter on this side – it’s bemusement at the inconsistencies”.<\/p>\n She said the legislation the TUV leader was debating included human rights laws “and the basic equal treatment of everybody in Northern Ireland”.<\/p>\n “So his legislation would rip up the very foundations of democracy, which is that everybody is equal,” she said.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n At one point there were shouts of “shame on you” from Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP) leader Claire Hanna.<\/p>\n It followed Allister saying the IRA’s aim during the Troubles to “push the border to the Irish Sea” had been achieved by the NI Protocol.<\/p>\n Hanna told MPs: “It is his actions in fact that are inserting the dynamism in the question about constitutional change.<\/p>\n “Every time he pulls a stunt like this, he drives more people to seek to get out of the control of men like him.”<\/p>\n Hanna said that “Northern Ireland in general wants to move on” from debating Brexit issues “morning, noon and night”.<\/p>\n “I think people at home’s hearts are sinking at the prospect of going back in time like a demented moth towards the hard-Brexit flame,” she added.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) leader Gavin Robinson said the issues were still being debated because Westminster “did not listen” to unionist concerns.<\/p>\n “Members on both sides of this house did not listen to the warnings, and the concerns, and the opportunities for compromise and agreement,” he said.<\/p>\n “And moreover, in doing and repeating the same approach today, are storing up greater potential of frustration for the future.”<\/p>\n The debate came ahead of a vote in the Stormont assembly on the Windsor Framework due next week.<\/p>\n The process, known as the democratic consent motion, was contained in the UK and EU’s 2020 Withdrawal Agreement to give local politicians a say on the rules.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n Private Members’ Bills are public bills introduced by MPs and Lords who are not government ministers.<\/p>\n As with other public bills, their purpose is to change the law as it applies to the general population.<\/p>\n A minority of Private Members’ Bills become law.<\/p>\n There are three ways in which an MP can table a Private Members’ Bill, but ballot bills have the best chance of becoming law, as they get priority for the limited amount of debating time available.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n‘Undemocratic plundering’<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n
‘Magical thinking’<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n
‘Going back in time’<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n
‘Potential of frustration’<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n
What are Private Members’ Bills?<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n