Stormont: EU law vote fails to get cross-community support

The first vote in the NI Assembly over whether to adopt a new EU law in Northern Ireland has divided Stormont's parties.

Unionist parties voted against the move, while Sinn Féin, Alliance and the SDLP backed it.

Without cross-community consent from a majority of unionists and nationalists, the new law cannot automatically apply.

It will ultimately be up to the UK government to decide whether to introduce or veto it.

The debate at Stormont involved using one of the democratic consent processes in the Windsor Framework.

The framework is the special Brexit deal which applies to Northern Ireland and means it continues to follow some EU laws relating to goods.

It provides ways for Stormont to show if it consents to new or amended EU laws applying in Northern Ireland.

Under this mechanism - known as an applicability motion - the UK said it would not agree to new EU laws being applied in NI unless the assembly passes it in a vote with cross-community consent.

It concerns a new rule passed by the EU in October on the protection of geographical indications (GI) for craft and industrial products.

That means legally defining and protecting certain products which are tied to a geographical area, and is considered a useful marketing tool which can add value.

There are already GI indicator schemes for food and drink - for example, only sparkling wines from a certain area of France can be called Champagne.

Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) assembly member Jonathan Buckley said the debate was a "significant moment" by enabling Stormont to express its view.

Speaking in the assembly, he argued the new EU law "would create a new regulatory border within the United Kingdom".

The party also used Tuesday's debate to show its critics within unionism that its decision to return to Stormont gave MLAs a greater say over the application of EU law in Northern Ireland.

Ulster Unionist Party (UUP) leader Doug Beattie said his party could not vote in favour of a measure without proper scrutiny of it first.

"We're all scrapping for things to say in regards to this because we don't know the depths of this - short term, medium term or long term," the representative for Upper Bann said.

Sinn Féin MLA Philip McGuigan described the assembly motion as a "sham fight".

He said Stormont should be "building on the success" of last week's trip to the US by executive ministers for St Patrick's Day events.

"Instead we have this motion, in effect a sham fight, which only serves the purpose of undermining the good work of last week and which could sow confusion to potential investors," he added.

Mr McGuigan, who chairs the assembly's Windsor Framework democratic scrutiny committee, said "dual market access is the key selling point to attracting investment" to Northern Ireland.

Alliance Party assembly member Sorcha Eastwood said the assembly was "discussing again what appears to be the internal DUP wrangling".

"I don't want to be spending the next two-and-a-half to three years re-litigating Brexit," the Lagan Valley representative said.

Social Democratic and Labour Party leader of the opposition Matthew O'Toole also backed the motion and and accused the DUP of being in a rush to "prove their anti-EU machismo".

"The DUP's stunt in blocking Northern Ireland participation in new protections for craft manufacturing could have real-world consequences for our amazing craft producers," he said.

The introduction of new EU laws under the Windsor Framework is ultimately a matter for the UK government.

As the assembly has not expressed cross-party support for the law, via an applicability motion, it may be expected that the government would veto it.

But the veto will not be applied if the government assesses that the new law would not create a new regulatory border between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, or if exceptional circumstances apply.

If the government vetoes the law, the EU could ultimately take "appropriate remedial measures".

On Tuesday, a government spokesperson said it noted the assembly vote, and would follow the legal framework set out in the Northern Ireland Act 1998.

It carried out an assessment of the regulation in advance of Tuesday's vote.

It suggested that, in theory, this could mean some products which are legally marketed in Great Britain could not be moved to Northern Ireland to be sold in the same way.

For example, a Great Britain product could be labelled as "Murano glass" and placed on the market in Great Britain in line with Great Britain standards.

But if it did not also meet the EU GI definition, then it could not be moved from Great Britain and placed on the Northern Ireland market - unless it were to be relabelled, so as not to indicate itself to be "Murano glass".

However, the government suggests this scenario is unlikely and that the effect of the law would be "limited".

"Given that the UK's collective and certification marks offer broadly similar protection to that of a GI scheme, we expect there would be few products marketable in GB but not NI," it said.

In contrast to the government, DUP leader Sir Jeffrey Donaldson said he believed the law could have serious implications for trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and could mean new checks at Northern Ireland ports.

"That is not only harmful to our economy but a threat to the United Kingdom internal market as a whole," he added.