Windsor Framework structures ineffective and overly bureaucratic
Mr Robinson said that the post-Brexit trading deal could never be effective until fundamental issues around lack of consent from unionists are addressed.
The House of Lords Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee has been holding evidence sessions examining the operation of the framework.
The Windsor Framework was agreed between the UK and the EU in 2023, amending the Northern Ireland Protocol. It governs post-Brexit trading arrangements in the region.
The DUP later reached the Safeguarding the Union deal with the previous UK government to further reduce some checks and paperwork on goods moving from the rest of the UK into Northern Ireland, leading to the restoration of the powersharing Executive at Stormont last year.
However, many unionists remain opposed to the framework, stating it creates a new regulatory border within the United Kingdom and because Northern Ireland continues to follow some EU laws relating to goods.
During his appearance before the committee, Mr Robinson was asked to assess the extent to which voices in Northern Ireland could be heard through the structures of the framework.
He said: 'I don't have a lot of faith in the current structures.
'When you consider the ability for politicians, parliamentarians, stakeholders, businesses, to engage with them.
'The structures around the Windsor Framework, though they may have evolved, are ineffective, opaque and overly bureaucratic.
The UK and EU agreed the Windsor Framework in 2023 (PA)
'They frustrate the ability for ordinary, routine and at times complex and serious engagement to either satisfy, resolve or ameliorate some of the harmful impositions that Northern Ireland finds itself in under these arrangements.'
The DUP leader added: 'I believe it cannot ever be effective until the fundamentals are resolved around the imposition that Northern Ireland was placed in without the consent of any elected unionist in Northern Ireland, without the consent of party colleagues in Westminster.'
In December, MLAs at Stormont voted to continue with the current arrangements for at least another four years in a democratic consent motion, which was part of the arrangements agreed between the UK and the EU.
However, unlike other votes at Stormont, there was no requirement for cross-community support for the motion.
Mr Robinson told peers: 'Though we have gone through a cycle of a parliamentary vote in Assembly terms in December of 2024, an inversion of cross-community protections.
'A false choice, do you wish this imposition to continue for a period of eight years or four years with a potential review.
'I don't believe they have been effective at all and if the Government were serious about increasing the opportunity to have voices heard and engage fundamentally in the propositions that are causing material impact, both constitutionally and practically in Northern Ireland, then they wouldn't only find an effective mechanism for that engagement but they would look at the fundamentals.'
He added: 'We have at the heart of this an agreement between the UK and the EU where they decide what is going to happen to Northern Ireland without any recourse to the citizenry of Northern Ireland or the elected representatives.
'Then you have the attempt or the added aspects of inclusion and participation but without any substantial or meaningful outworkings of that participation or inclusion.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
an hour ago
- Reuters
European shares edge higher; investors eye trade developments
July 1 (Reuters) - European shares nudged higher on Tuesday, while uncertainty around trade deals remained a drag on sentiment. The pan-European STOXX 600 index (.STOXX), opens new tab advanced 0.2% at 542.42 points, as of 0708 GMT. With the July 9 deadline for countries to reach deals with the United States fast approaching, uncertainty about U.S. tariffs and their impact on global growth has kept investors on edge. U.S. President Donald Trump expressed frustration with U.S.-Japan trade negotiations on Monday as Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent warned that countries could be notified of sharply higher tariffs despite good-faith negotiations. The EU is open to a deal that would apply a universal 10% tariff on many of its exports, but the bloc is seeking U.S. commitments to reduce tariffs in some key sectors, Bloomberg News reported on Monday. EU's trade chief will hold negotiations this week in Washington to avert higher tariffs. European utility stocks (.SX6P), opens new tab led sectoral gains, rising 0.9%. Media (.SXMP), opens new tab shares fell 0.6%. On Tuesday, ECB President Christine Lagarde will join a panel with several other central bank chiefs, including the U.S. Fed chair, at the ECB forum in Sintra, Portugal. Lagarde said on Monday that uncertainty is bound to remain a key feature of the global economy. In the U.S., investors await a vote over Trump's sweeping tax-cut and spending bill. Renault ( opens new tab said it will report a loss of about 9.5 billion euros ($11.2 billion) on its stake in Nissan Motor (7201.T), opens new tab in the first half. Shares of the French carmaker fell 1.2%.
The Guardian
2 hours ago
- The Guardian
Tuesday briefing: How weakened is Iran after Operation Midnight Hammer – and where might it go from here?
Good morning. The term 'cakeism' – the false belief that one can simultaneously enjoy the benefits of two mutually exclusive choices – may forever be associated with the Brexit negotiations, when keeping the advantages of EU membership while also shedding its costs became the UK's official bargaining position. But the appeal of cakeism endures, and over the last week the US president's approach to the conflict with Iran has started to look distinctly gateau-shaped. Donald Trump wants the glory of a decisive victory on the battlefield but is not so keen on the long-term repercussions that come with it: tit-for-tat retaliations, unforeseeable conflict spillage, focused diplomacy, or even regime change – the kind of talk the Maga movement associates with Trump's predecessors. Questions over the efficacy of the US strikes of Iranian nuclear facilities remain unanswered. And as the regime in Tehran defiantly insists on its own 'victory', insists that trust in the UN nuclear inspectorate is 'broken', and cracks down on dissent at home, it is starting to look as if Trump might not be able to have his cake and eat it after all. For today's newsletter, I spoke to diplomatic editor Patrick Wintour about how weakened Iran really is, and what this could mean for the stability of the ceasefire. Here are the headlines. Welfare | Downing Street's plans to see off a major Labour welfare rebellion were in chaos on Monday night, amid continued brinkmanship between MPs and the government over the scale of the concessions. There was significant division between government departments over how to respond to rebels' demands ahead of the knife-edge vote on Tuesday. UK news | Police have formally opened a criminal investigation into comments made by Bob Vylan and Kneecap at Glastonbury after reviewing video and audio footage of the performances. Meanwhile on Monday, the BBC said that it should not have allowed chants of 'Death to the IDF' at Bob Vylan's performance to be broadcast. Crown Estate | King Charles is set to receive official annual income of £132m next year, after his portfolio of land and property made more than £1bn in profits thanks to a boom in the offshore wind sector. Arms trade | Britain's decision to allow the export of F-35 fighter jet components to Israel, despite accepting they could be used in breach of international humanitarian law in Gaza, was lawful, London's high court has ruled. The judges ruled that the 'acutely sensitive and political issue' was 'a matter for the executive … not for the courts'. Crime | A 92-year-old man who evaded justice for almost 60 years has been convicted of raping and murdering a woman in Bristol, after a review by a cold case police team and scientists. Officers believe the 58-year gap between the crime and the conviction may be the biggest in modern English policing history. On 21 June, the US air force and navy bombed three of Iran's nuclear sites, thus becoming directly involved in a military conflict started when Israel struck key military and nuclear facilities in Iran eight days earlier. Since then, president Donald Trump has been ever more adamant that Iran's nuclear facilities have been 'completely and totally obliterated', and that the ceasefire agreed on 24 June would bring 'tremendous LOVE, PEACE, AND PROSPERITY' to the region in perpetuity. A week on, the ceasefire still holds, but questions over the strikes' long-term consequences are mounting. CNN has reported US intelligence assessments that the bombing did not destroy the core components of the country's nuclear programme. The regime in Tehran, meanwhile, has struck a note of defiance, with Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, claiming his country had 'dealt a severe slap to the face of America' with a missile attack on a US base in nearby Qatar. Which begs the question: did Operation Midnight Hammer weaken Iran's nuclear ambitions, or will it embolden its leadership to pursue them in the long term? How damaged are Iran's military capabilities? The intense fighting between Israel and Iran – now often referred to as the '12-day war' – exposed the Islamic Republic's air defences, showing it was not able to defend itself as effectively against aerial assaults as it has previously claimed. The American strike on the three nuclear facilities – at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan – was undoubtedly effective. 'Most serious analysts think that the damage of the US strikes was very, very serious, and it's hard to imagine that Iran still has a credible nuclear weapons programme in place that has somehow eluded intelligence,' said Patrick Wintour. That is not the same as 'obliteration', however – significantly so. Rafael Grossi, the head of the UN's nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), said that while American bombers had 'severely damaged' Iranian facilities, 'one cannot claim that everything has disappeared and there is nothing there', and Tehran could begin weaponising uranium again in 'a matter of months'. 'Even if Iran just has a couple of dozen centrifuges out of tens of thousands left, it could purify its uranium stockpiles within about three months,' said Patrick. 'That's the problem with a military solution and no diplomatic strategy behind it – it would have to be a total wipeout to solve the problem.' Last week, Iran's parliament voted unanimously to suspend all cooperation with the IAEA, and the message that Tehran does not want anyone to have a close look at the wreckage was underlined by a menacing article in an Iranian newspaper, claiming Grossi was an Israeli spy who should be executed. 'They cannot have access to our site,' Iran's UN ambassador Amir-Saeid Iravani said. 'Our assessment is that they have not done their jobs.' Until the nuclear inspectorate is allowed access to what remains of the facilities, Patrick said, 'we are driving blind' – which, at the moment, could actually be not just in Iran's but also Trump's interest. 'Iran wants to have nuclear ambiguity for now', he added. For the US president, meanwhile, the lack of empirical evidence has allowed him to claim an emphatic military victory: 'It has allowed his assessment of the strikes' impact to become harder and harder.' How isolated is Iran diplomatically? In recent months, Iran's foreign minister has invested some effort trying to convey to Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the UAE that Tehran is not some rogue bellicose state but a mature diplomatic player in the region. 'The war has undone that,' said Patrick. 'And that's the case even though those wealthy Gulf states don't publicly support what the US has done, and even bemoan its short sightedness in private.' The 12-day war and its aftermath have also shown up little return for Iran's diplomatic efforts in Europe. Germany's new chancellor, conservative Friedrich Merz, praised Israel's air strikes on the Islamic Republic, saying it was 'doing the dirty work for all of us', and later added there was 'no reason' to criticise America's attack. Britain's prime minister, Keir Starmer, backed the strikes and only warned mildly of a 'risk of escalation' in the Middle East. 'What will trouble Tehran most is that it hasn't managed to leverage the disagreements between Trump and the European Union,' said Patrick. 'The Iranians had hoped that Europe would be much more condemnatory of the strikes.' Is the regime also weakened domestically? In the wake of Operation Midnight Hammer, some Maga acolytes on social media called on the Iranian people to rise up against the regime. Given the social and economic situation in the west Asian republic, this might sound like a realistic demand: unemployment and poverty rates are high, inflation at almost 40%, in part due to the state's self-punishingly high military spending. It was only three years ago that the country saw civil unrest and mass protests against the regime, triggered by the death in police custody of the 22-year-old Kurdish-Iranian woman Mahsa Amini. Yet Israeli and American air strikes, with a reported death toll of more than 900 lives, have also shored up support for the government. 'The regime is trying to galvanise what happened, and there has been a rallying-around-the-flag effect', Patrick said. 'Even critical voices in the diaspora have been mindful of alienating ordinary Iranians.' Reza Pahlavi, the exiled son of the last shah who has been one of the leading figures of the pro-democracy movement, has endorsed calls for a civil uprising but has appeared isolated. Instead of pro-democracy marches, Tehran has seen the regime parade the coffins of the 'martyred' military chiefs and nuclear scientists who died in the strikes to state funerals. The regime has also further tightened its grip on civil liberties, turning on alleged traitors from within. 'After the strikes, the Iranian opposition called on the regime to mark a fresh start and release political prisoners', says Patrick. In fact, the opposite happened.' During the 12-day war, six Iranians were executed on alleged charges of collaborating with Israel. 'It is clear that a new wave of intense repression has begun, more severe than ever before', the daughter of one political prisoner told Guardian reporters. Prioritising military over social spending might become a harder political sell in the wake of the war, but then there is only so much political-selling that authoritarian regimes need to do while they have the electorate's hands tied behind their backs. 'In truth, Iran's loathsome regime didn't even come close to falling', said foreign affairs commentator Simon Tisdall in his analysis. What does this mean for the ceasefire? The truce between Israel and Iran is volatile. 'The situation is very unstable, and anything could kick it off,' said Patrick. The list of unpredictable 'anythings' is long: American security agencies have warned of a looming threat of Tehran-backed; US-based 'sleeper cells' could be called in for retaliatory attacks; and Iran's top Shia cleric has issued a fatwa for Trump and Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu to be made to 'regret their words and mistakes'. Analysts are concerned about the lack of a political programme to keep the ceasefire in place. Trump has said he is 'not offering Iran anything', while the Iranian side has claimed that the US president wants to return to negotiations. In an interview with the BBC on Monday, Iran's deputy foreign minister, Majid Takht-Ravanchi, said his country would only be open to such talks if the US were to rule out further strikes during the process. But as long as Trump's intelligence assessment of his victory remains the same, Patrick reckoned there was also considerable pressure to keep the ceasefire in place. 'If it were to end, the next stage could only be regime change, and that would take Trump into ideologically difficult territory.' Sign up to First Edition Our morning email breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters after newsletter promotion Stefan Stern makes a compelling case for a collective U-turn on U-turns. They can make politicians look indecisive and sloppy, but isn't it a good thing that politicians show they can change their mind? After all, he writes: 'Westminster orthodoxy and the real world are not always in perfect alignment.' Charlie Lindar, acting deputy editor, newsletters I enjoyed Sam Jones's interview with Santiago Yahuarcani, the indigenous Peruvian artist whose paintings of pink dolphins (above) and pipe-smoking frogs take you deep into the Amazonian rainforest. Philip Where season one of Squid Game was a word-of-mouth sensation, seasons two and now three have nearly killed off the show's legacy. How did it go so wrong? Stuart Heritage breaks it down in this spoiler-spattered post-mortem. Charlie If Vladimir Putin asked you for a dance, would you say yes? The former Austrian foreign minister Karin Kneissl did so in 2018 – at her own wedding – and has since left Europe behind to head up a think tank in St Petersburg. In this long read, Amanda Coakley asks what led a career diplomat to fall under the Moscow strongman's spell. A riveting morality tale about the petty grievances that animate geopolitics. Philip The Guardian's Phil Daoust has one tip for a long and healthy life: get a grip. In his latest Fit for ever column, he explores how grip strength is linked to heart health, stroke risk and an indicator of your physical wellbeing. Charlie Tennis | Carlos Alcaraz survived Wimbledon's hottest-ever opening day although the Spaniard was far from his sizzling best as he began his quest for a hat-trick of titles with a scare against Fabio Fognini at the All England Club on Monday. Elsewhere on Monday, Emma Raducanu and Sonay Kartal were among a record seven British players to win in the first round. Football | Manchester City have been knocked out of the Club World Cup in an upset 4-3 defeat to Saudi Arabia's Al-Hilal. With the scores level at 2-2 at the end of 90 minutes, goals for Kalidou Koulibaly and and Marcos Leonardo were enough to take Al-Hilal through despite Phil Foden's volley. Formula One | Lando Norris has urged fans at Silverstone not to cast his McLaren teammate and world championship rival, Oscar Piastri, as a villain at Sunday's British Grand Prix. Norris won the Austrian GP in Spielberg after a tense, lights-to-flag fight with Piastri, the pair in almost constant competition over 70 laps. 'Labour bid to woo rebels descends into chaos on eve of welfare vote,' is the splash on the Guardian today. The i has 'No 10 in final push to win over rebel MPs ahead of welfare vote.' The FT opts for 'Diluted welfare reform halves savings but still pushes 150,000 into poverty,' while the Mail splashes with 'Rebel MPs are set to humiliate PM today.' 'NHS will prioritise UK doctors and nurses,' says the Times. 'BBC boss at festival for rapper's hate chant,' is the lead story over at the Telegraph. The Express highlights the same controversy at Glastonbury with: 'BBC boss has 'to act now or resign''. 'Did somebody say..... JUST NICKED,' has the Sun, for a story about arrests of asylum seekers working as food delivery drivers. The Metro leads with 'The Vivienne's tragic last hours,' and the Star focuses on the heatwave with: 'You ain't seen nothing sweat!' The French town that banned its tap water and the chemicals that could be in yours Phoebe Weston heads to Alsace, eastern France, to hear about a ban on drinking water caused by dangerously high levels of 'forever chemicals'. A bit of good news to remind you that the world's not all bad Few office workers do not dream of becoming a digital nomad. But what if that life isn't for you? In this feature, Emily Bratt (above) writes about when she – and others around the globe – discovered they needed the comfort of a 9-5, and the relief they gained from coming back home. 'I had conflated digital nomadism with holidaying,' writes Bratt. 'But it turned out that working in a cafe was still working in a cafe, whether you are in a Starbucks in Swindon or a beach bar in Bali. I found myself resenting having to work when there was so much to explore.' Sign up here for a weekly roundup of The Upside, sent to you every Sunday And finally, the Guardian's puzzles are here to keep you entertained throughout the day. Until tomorrow. Quick crossword Cryptic crossword Wordiply
New Statesman
3 hours ago
- New Statesman
The rebellions against Starmer are only just beginning
Photo by Lauren Hurley / No 10 Downing Street To rebel is to wage war. Specifically, if you go back to the Latin, it means to wage war again – the conquered rising up against their conquerors, insurgents who refuse to let grievances go. Etymology is probably not front of mind for Keir Starmer as the vote on his government's highly contentious welfare reform bill looms today (1 July). Last week, 126 Labour MPs – nearly a third of the parliamentary party, easily enough to defeat the government – put their names to a wrecking amendment. A stand-off ensued, and eventually it was the government that blinked. In an attempt to win over the backbenchers, concessions were hastily offered, concessions that will leave Rachel Reeves with a £3bn hole to fill in. But that still may not be enough. Around 50 rebels are thought to be holding firm – including, somewhat ironically, one who was until very recently a Labour whip. Assuming the numbers are accurate (which, given how this disaster seems to have caught Downing Street by surprise, isn't worth counting on), a government with a majority of 156 should be able to ram its reforms through with a revolt of this size. But what happens next? Rebellions are not just humiliating for the prime ministers who suffer them. As the derivation suggests, they are rarely a one-time thing. For MPs mulling over whether to defy the whips and vote with their conscience or be well-behaved little backbenchers who might get a promotion one day, the data shows rebelling gets easier with practice. Philip Cowley and Mark Stuart from the University of Nottingham analysed rebellions in the 2001 parliament under Tony Blair and found a worrying trend of MPs who had previously been obedient getting a taste for revolt. Matt Bevington from UK In A Changing Europe pointed out that, once Theresa May had lost one vote on Brexit, the situation spiralled: her government suffered ten defeats on Brexit votes in nine months. As well as altering the psyche of the backbench MP, big rebellions – whether they succeed or not – automatically reflect the party leader in a way that is uncomfortably revealing. When David Cameron lost a vote in 2015 regarding the rules around a future EU referendum, it wasn't just his personal authority that took a blow. Cameron, who had just won a slim majority earlier that year, lost by 27 votes when 37 of his own MPs joined Labour in opposing the government. Both the scale of the rebellion and the willingness of Labour to work with the Tory Eurosceptics should have sent red lights flashing on No 10's dashboard. It signalled that the government could not count on Jeremy Corbyn's Labour party in its coming fight over the EU, regardless of the broadly pro-Brussels sensibilities of the Labour MPs and members – a lesson that proved inescapably true during the referendum campaign itself. Theresa May's premiership after the 2017 election was essentially one rebellion after another, each sapping at her authority and backing her further into a Brexit corner. The parliamentary arithmetic of pragmatists in government attempting to work out something the EU might actually accept, hard-Brexiteer Tory rebels willing to brook no compromise and opposition MPs intent on being as obstructive as possible meant there was a majority against every conceivable option but no majority for any of them. May was eventually chewed up and spat out by her government's own contradictions. May, of course, had the excuse that she didn't have a majority to work with. Rishi Sunak did, having inherited the 'stonking' electoral triumph won by Boris Johnson. He ended up equally trapped between his backbenchers and reality, suffering a humiliating rebellion when 61 of his MPs backed an amendment condemning the Rwanda bill for not being tough enough. The fact that Sunak went on to win the vote didn't matter. His authority – already fragile after failing to win a leadership contest in his own right – never recovered. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe That's the thing about rebellions: once MPs realise they have the numbers to force the government into positions it would rather avoid, they rarely forget it. Starmer is now facing down a revolt of a similar size to those who challenged Sunak with the Rwanda amendment, but at the start of the parliament (which celebrates its first birthday on Friday) rather than the end of it. It is delusional to imagine the 126 MPs who managed to extract major concessions from the government over the welfare cuts will settle down and play nice for the next four years. They've learned a powerful lesson from all this. How has a government with a seemingly unassailable majority got into such trouble early on? The issue is partly one of substance: asking Labour MPs to vote for measures that seem tailor-made to antagonise the Labour base and go against Labour principles was always going to be a brutal struggle. And there are major issues of party management. Labour MPs talk openly of feeling disregarded and ignored, patronised by the leadership and taken for granted. Keir Starmer clearly hasn't done enough to get to know his 400-odd foot soldiers and win them over. This has been bubbling over for some time – perhaps since he withdrew the whip from seven rebels 18 days into office. There's another issue. Backbenchers with rebellion on the mind talk of being unwilling to have a vote cutting disability benefits on their record. That record is very easy to find: online on the official parliamentary website, or via They Work For You, where you can look up your MP and see a helpful summary of how they've voted on a range of topical issues – like, for example, disability benefits. There is no allowance made for 'the whip told me to' – and nor should there be. Transparency in politics is undoubtedly positive. It is good that voters can see how the people elected to represent them are getting on with that job. But in the days before the internet, MPs didn't have to worry about constituents marking (or, at least, being able to mark) them on every vote. They had more leeway to back an unpopular measure for the sake of keeping the government running smoothly. They Work For You is run by the mySociety project, whose aim is to use the internet to empower citizens to take a more active role in democracy. It launched in 2003 – the same year a staggering 139 Labour MPs voted against the Blair government, opposing the invasion of Iraq. No one is suggesting the Brexit hardliners of the May era or Sunak's Rwanda challengers made decisions purely on the basis of ensuring their profiles gave the correct impression for the voters they cared most about. But it's hard to imagine this didn't feature at all in their thinking. As he heads towards his one-year anniversary in government this Friday, Starmer should be aware that the same will feature in the thinking of the 126 MPs who signed last week's letter, whatever happens with the welfare vote today. If you put your principles first by rebelling once, the temptation is there to rebel again. The clue's in the name. [See also: A humbling week for Keir Starmer] Related
