“DUP Opposes EU Regulation Extension, Donaldson”

Jeffrey Donaldson, the head of the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP), has stated that the extension of a fresh EU rule, which legally sets out and safeguards specific items, to Northern Ireland could cause disruption to supply chains as well as the marketing of certain products. Consequently, the DUP is against the regulation, necessitating cross-community approval from the Stormont legislators. If this law fails to pass, the determination of whether or not to implement it will fall to the UK government.

The DUP plans to utilise an applicability motion at Stormont on Tuesday, facilitating a vote by the Northern Ireland Assembly on the safeguarding of craft and industrial items’ geographical indications. Post-Brexit trade arrangements have led to the preservation of certain EU laws in Northern Ireland, a contingency of the Windsor Framework agreement settled upon by the British government to pacify unionist apprehensions. The framework includes mechanisms for the Stormont Assembly to either reject or sanction new or revised regulations, the applicability motion being one of them.

Tuesday will see the DUP bring the motion forward, proposing that the new law, providing legal protection to specific products with links to a geographic area, be applied to Northern Ireland. However, its own legislators will oppose the introduced motion, with Mr Donaldson arguing it would considerably extend EU intellectual property law in Northern Ireland.

Mr Donaldson, speaking to RTE radio’s Morning Ireland, remarked that the DUP dislike the regulation because it could “create significant problems with our ability to market our products in Great Britain, which is our biggest market.” He elaborated that goods worth over £12 billion are sold to Britain annually, which is practically less than what they sell to the EU. This law, Donaldson believes, has the potential to cause supply chain issues and limits on their capability to promote certain products.

Donaldson used textiles imported into Northern Ireland as an example, claiming the rules might prevent certain advertising tactics due to the origin of the fabrics. “So, based on our assessment, we feel that we should use the methods agreed between the EU and the UK government, which for the first time created a democratic voice in these matters. It’s worth remembering that the Northern Ireland protocol gave Stormont no say at all,” he concluded.

Stormont holds influence in the matter, indicating that to save Northern Ireland’s industries, the proposed legislation shouldn’t be enacted. According to Mr. Donaldson, his perspective is that the ‘Stormont Brake’ isn’t applicable in this instance, and it’s a question of jurisdiction. He further added that the UK government is intended to follow the Assembly’s directives. “If the Assembly fails to uphold this law through a cross-community consensus, the UK government will honour our democratic legislature’s decisions,” he stated.

The ‘Stormont Brake’ bestows MLAs with the power to oppose any changes to EU regulations that affect Northern Ireland. However, this brake can only be triggered by London, not Stormont.

Mr. Donaldson dismissed the criticisms made by Matthew O’Toole, mid-leader of the SDLP in Stormont, who referred to the DUP’s stance as merely “an attention-seeking ploy”. Mr Donaldson responded by criticising the opposition for failing to execute their responsibilities properly, stating that their duty is to ensure that all laws implemented in Northern Ireland benefit its citizens, bolster the industries, and serve the communities. He further condemned their use of dismissive language, claiming that it does not impress anyone.

In response to an inquiry about the DUP’s plans to oppose all new EU law proposals concerning Northern Ireland, Mr Donaldson clarified that each proposed legislation will be evaluated on individual merits. He added that a democratic scrutiny committee has been formed at Stormont, a result of the DUP’s negotiations, which now plays a critical role in assessing the possible implications of each proposed law, demonstrating that their approach will be based on each individual case.

Condividi