😠 Trade Diversion and Windsor Framework

• Trade Diversion Concerns: Jim Allister (North Antrim) discussed the increasing issue of trade diversion in Northern Ireland due to the Northern Ireland Protocol. He highlighted that trade from Great Britain (GB) to Northern Ireland has become more complicated since the Protocol’s implementation, leading to a significant shift in trade patterns.

• Statistics and Evidence: Allister referenced data from the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency (NISRA) showing that before Brexit, Northern Ireland predominantly traded with GB. However, after the Protocol, trade from the Republic of Ireland increased dramatically, suggesting a shift driven by the new trade barriers with GB.

• Bureaucratic Challenges: The imposition of EU customs checks and regulations on goods coming from GB was cited as a major cause of trade diversion. Allister mentioned the difficulties faced by businesses, particularly smaller sectors, due to the need for customs declarations and additional staff to handle increased bureaucracy.

• Economic and Constitutional Implications: The debate emphasized the economic repercussions of trade diversion, including higher transport costs and reduced competitiveness of the Northern Ireland economy. There were also concerns about the constitutional implications, suggesting that the Protocol was designed to economically align Northern Ireland more with the Republic of Ireland.

• Government’s Position: Secretary of State Hilary Benn defended the Windsor Framework, arguing it was a necessary solution post-Brexit to manage trade across an open border between the UK and EU. He highlighted efforts to improve the trade situation and stressed the importance of maintaining stable trading arrangements.

• Article 16 and Mutual Enforcement: Allister proposed using Article 16 of the Protocol to address trade diversion, but Benn countered that this could destabilize the current arrangements. Allister also advocated for a system of mutual enforcement as an alternative to the current trade setup.

• Business Perspectives: Benn mentioned meeting businesses that were benefiting from access to both UK and EU markets under the Windsor Framework. However, other MPs, like Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann), criticized the framework for increasing costs and complicating trade for various sectors in Northern Ireland.

• Future Actions: The government committed to continuing to address trade issues pragmatically and mentioned the establishment of an independent monitoring panel to assess the impact of the Windsor Framework on trade.

The session exhibits a high level of disagreement, warranting a rating of 5 due to the intensity and frequency of the exchanges between the Members of Parliament, particularly Jim Allister and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Hilary Benn. The disagreement centers on the impact and management of the Northern Ireland protocol and Windsor framework, with a specific focus on trade diversion.

• Jim Allister consistently argues that the protocol has led to significant trade diversion and economic disruption, citing statistics and examples to illustrate his point. He criticizes the Government for not using Article 16 to counteract the diversion of trade, which he sees as detrimental to Northern Ireland’s economy and its place in the UK.

• In contrast, Hilary Benn defends the Windsor framework, asserting it as a necessary step following Brexit and highlighting perceived benefits, such as dual market access and reduced restrictions on certain goods movements. He disagrees with Allister’s call to trigger Article 16, arguing that such a move would undermine stability and progress made through negotiation.

• Interventions from other MPs, such as Sammy Wilson, Jim Shannon, Robin Swann, and Carla Lockhart, further highlight the disagreement by reinforcing Allister’s arguments with specific examples of how businesses in their constituencies are negatively impacted by the current trade arrangements. These interventions often challenge Benn’s claims of smooth goods flow and business benefits.

• The session includes direct confrontational exchanges, such as when Allister interrupts Benn to assert that trade diversion is a form of ‘punishment’, and when Benn refutes Allister’s accusations and proposals, maintaining that triggering Article 16 would not meet the required criteria.

• The session’s language and tone, particularly Allister’s impassioned speech and the subsequent back-and-forth, underscore the deep divide and active disagreement between the Government’s stance and the opposition, particularly from Northern Ireland representatives.

The ongoing debates and interruptions throughout the session, especially around the efficacy of the Windsor framework and trade diversion, demonstrate significant disagreement, leading to the highest level of disagreement rating.