UK Government must deliver promise on unfettered trade – Little-Pengelly
The DUP agreed the Safeguarding the Union command paper with the previous government in 2024, which allowed it to return to the Stormont powersharing Executive at Stormont.
However, the unionist party says that all of its concerns over post-Brexit trading arrangements have not been met.
The Windsor Framework, and its predecessor the Northern Ireland Protocol, require checks and customs paperwork on goods moving from Great Britain into Northern Ireland.
Under the arrangements, which were designed to ensure no hardening of the Irish land border post-Brexit, Northern Ireland continues to follow many EU trade and customs rules.
Ms Little-Pengelly used the speech to call for unionist unity (Jonathan McCambridge/PA)
DUP MLA Ms Little-Pengelly told the gathering in Lisburn that unionism faced 'new challenges'.
She said: 'Chief amongst them is the imposition of the sea border within our own country.
'A division between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom that no unionist can ever truly accept.
'It is not enough to celebrate our culture if we do not stand to defend it.
'The union is not a distant idea.
'It is our political, economic and emotional home.
'A border in the Irish Sea undermines that home, it divides our people, disrupts our trade and dilutes our identity.'
She added: 'The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland made a clear and unambiguous promise to fully restore unfettered internal trade across this United Kingdom.
'That was a promise to the people of Northern Ireland.
'They must deliver it.'
The deputy First Minister said it was a time for 'confident and positive strong unionism'.
She described the Orange Order as a 'great unifier across many strands of our unionist conviction'.
Ms Little-Pengelly said: 'Unionism must work together outside of the Order.
'This is a time for vigilance, but it is also a time of opportunity.
'Division brings fracture and weakness, it is unity that brings strength.
'We must recognise that the bonds which pull and bind us together will always mean we have so much more in common than what can ever divide us.'
She added: 'Let us recognise the talents and abilities across all shades of unionism, and by using all such, our case will not only be strengthened, but indeed undeniable and irresistible.
'Let me be very clear, the might of the case for our continued union will always be our biggest strength.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Statesman
an hour ago
- New Statesman
Why is Boris Johnson so scared of Emmanuel Macron?
Brexitworld is in a state of outrage. It is bad enough that the French president was granted a State visit to the UK in which there are fancy dinners, speeches to Parliament, meetings with the King and everyone speaks fondly of his nation. Entente amicale, indeed. But then our guest had the temerity to point out that Brexit has not gone entirely to plan. 'Many people in your country explained that Brexit would make it possible to fight more effectively against illegal immigration,' said President Macron, 'but since Brexit the UK has no migratory agreement with the EU.' This, he argued, in combination with the absence of legal routes within Europe to come to the UK, 'makes an incentive to make the crossing, precisely the opposite of what the pro-Brexit people promised.' Not done there, Macron went on to say that the British people were 'sold a lie…which is that the problem was Europe, but the problem has become Brexit'. How very dare he? In some of our newspapers, the GB News studios and on social media, Brexiteer fury has been unconstrained. He is 'arrogant and condescending'; he is 'insulting the British people'; he has 'libelled half the country as dunces', particularly the working-classes; he has committed a 'grotesque offence against diplomacy'; his comments, according to the Shadow Home Secretary, no less, are 'damaging to democracy'; he is 'an enemy and should be treated as such'. Not to miss out on this sudden revival of 2019 rhetoric, our former Prime Minister, Boris Johnson has waded in. 'The French president is blatantly using this crisis to make a political point – namely that Brexit Britain has been unable to control its borders', thunders Johnson in the Daily Mail, shocked that anyone could stoop so low as to use a crisis to make a political point. In the interests of his readers, however, Johnson overcomes his scruples to ask who is the 'evil genius' behind the arrival of thousands of migrants on the Kent shore, a 'daily humiliation of the British state' and a 'moral, political and economic disaster'. It is all a giant conspiracy, you see, masterminded by a 'Mr Big' (or 'Monsieur Petit', hoho!), to discredit Brexit. It is President Macron who is to blame. All these young men in boats have been 'effectively recruited by Macron to embarrass the UK'; they are his 'shock troops in his continuing jihad against Brexit'. Having established his credentials as a statesman and serious thinker with all the authority of a distinguished former Prime Minister, Johnson proceeds to give his views on the UK-France migrant deal agreed last week. He points out that if the scheme is approved, the French expect to take about 50 people per week and that, on current numbers of migrants, only 6 per cent would be deported. This is a perfectly reasonable point. When it comes to addressing these crossings, it is not a silver bullet, as Ministers have acknowledged. Johnson, however, does have a silver bullet. The Rwanda scheme, he says, 'doesn't mean sending back six per cent of illegals; it means sending 100 per cent of them from Kent to Kigali'. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe This is very evidently untrue. At best, Rwanda had capacity for 500 migrants in the first year, the equivalent of ten weeks of the new French arrangement. If the scale of the new deal with France is insufficient to deter migrants from crossing the channel, so was the Rwanda scheme. Who would have expected a blatant untruth on immigration from Johnson? Truly, it is just like old times – as is the general tenor of the debate. Macron's central argument is that the leave campaign promised that Brexit would deliver simple answers to complex problems. Sufficient numbers of people believed the promises for the country to leave, Brexit was delivered, but the problems – including illegal migration – have got worse, not better. He has a point. What is fascinating is to observe how the Brexiteers – those who made the unfulfilled promises – have reacted. It is not to claim that Brexit has been a success and to reassure leave-voters that they have been vindicated. If pressed, many acknowledge that it has not gone well, but claim that it just has not been implemented properly. Instead, it is to fall back on the argument that Brexit is the 'will of the people'; that the narrow victory on 23 June 2016 was a statement of eternal truth that must be forever revered and unquestioned. Our politicians might seek to divine what it means (and, obviously, those who were supportive of Brexit from the start are best placed to do so), but should not question the judgement. It has become a matter of faith. And then comes along Emmanuel Macron. He says that the people (52 per cent of those who voted nine years ago) were wrong, that their decision was based upon untruths. Rather than venerate the wisdom of the people, he is – according to his critics – calling them stupid. He is a blasphemer from a foreign land. For advocates of Brexit, the referendum result settled the matter. To question the decision, to compare the promises made at the time and the subsequent reality is an offensive attack on democracy. The debate must be closed down. To some extent, as a tactic, it continues to work. Few mainstream British politicians make the argument that the 2016 result was a mistake, even if most of the public would agree. For those who remain Brexit-supporters, any criticism of Brexit is taken personally. But a mistake it surely was, and it should not be left to just President Macron to say so. Related
.png%3Fwidth%3D1200%26height%3D800%26crop%3D1200%3A800&w=3840&q=100)
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
‘Schengen, the euro, the whole thing': Readers say UK must fully commit to rejoining EU
Talk of the UK rejoining the EU is back in the headlines, sparked by a new YouGov poll and a high-profile visit from French President Emmanuel Macron. The survey, carried out across six western European nations, found that most Britons now support rejoining the EU – but only if the UK can retain the opt-outs it once had, such as keeping the pound and remaining outside the Schengen zone. Meanwhile, a majority of people in the EU's four largest countries – France, Germany, Italy and Spain – say they would welcome Britain back, though not on the same generous terms it previously enjoyed. The findings come just days after Sir Keir Starmer hosted Macron in London during the first state visit by an EU leader since Brexit. Reacting to the poll, Independent readers had strong views. Many dismissed the idea of returning on old terms as unrealistic or 'delusional'. There was broad agreement that the UK had thrown away a uniquely favourable deal – one that won't be offered again. Others pointed to the fallout of Brexit: economic decline, lost influence, mounting bureaucracy. Several went further, saying they'd happily join Schengen and adopt the euro if that's what it takes to repair relations and rejoin the bloc. Here's what you had to say: The concessions Thatcher fought for were chucked away That poll will come as a surprise to many. A widespread view is that people in EU countries would demand their governments block any UK application to be a member state. Of course, any such application would have to comply with the current rules of the EU – all those concessions Thatcher etc. fought for and won were chucked away in 2020. avidmidlandsreader We are not even at square one What's arguably worse than the original Brexit vote (which could, partly at least, be attributed to ignorance) is the persistent failure of many to recognise that a massive mistake was made and the continued support for a party run by Farage. This is the preferred option of the majority. Nothing has been learned and we are not, nearly a decade after the referendum, even at square one in terms of rejoining. Rejoining would take at least a decade, probably more. Step number one has to be to get the issue fully back into the arena of political debate, with step two being negotiations to rejoin the single market. Musil The sensible majority have become the underground It is bizarre that the sensible majority would like to rejoin the EU, but neither of the main parties will listen to the sensible majority. It is like some far-off country where the sensible majority have become the underground. It's the same with electoral reform, where the sensible majority want proportional representation. We have been foisted with political leaders who don't care about the views of the sensible majority. RobGood Brexit proved we always had sovereignty The EU has the last word, but opt-outs and terms will be subject to negotiation. It always is for every applicant country. One thing Brexit did prove beyond doubt: we always had sovereignty. We could always leave. The difference is, we now know how undesirable leaving actually is by any real-world metric – whether power, sovereignty, immigration, control, standards, quality of life, poo in rivers, or bureaucracy: all worse since Brexit, by a country mile in most cases. AlwaysWondering A non-starter without fiscal union I am a Europhile. I even live in the EU. But any notion of the UK rejoining and having to adopt the euro without there also being a fiscal union is a complete non-starter. There are far too many pro-EU advocates who do not understand why. YetAnotherName A supermajority would be needed The problem is that although most people in the UK regret leaving, the majority in favour of rejoining is a relatively modest 56 per cent. Unless that goes up substantially, I don't see any PM risking another referendum on EU membership. In order to definitely reverse the 2016 result and shut up Brexiteers banging on about the will of the people, any future EU referendum is likely to need a supermajority. Tanaquil2 No opt-outs this time The EU wouldn't allow the UK to have the opt-outs if it rejoined. They were part of the problem in the relationship, for both sides – e.g. the UK wanted to be at the centre of the EU, but couldn't be because it wasn't in the euro. So that was a major cause of resentment and friction. The organisation has also become more centralised since the UK left. So the UK's choice would be between either rejoining without the opt-outs (the article says only 36% of UK voters would support this) or staying out. OneView Unbridgeable chasm between EU and UK expectations There's a probably unbridgeable chasm between the terms upon which a majority of the EU population would welcome the re-entry of the UK and those which the UK population would accept. I live in France. My sense is that the UK would be highly unlikely to be able to negotiate a return under anything even approaching the previous terms. Which, if I might say so, serves to underline the self-harm of having walked away from what must be a serious contender for the best deal in history. PinkoRadical Rejoining still best for the country Why would we have the right to apply on the same terms as we left? Thatcher got a good deal out of the EU, but it was decided to give it up. Cherry-picking won't work, but rejoining is still best for this country, as we will always get better deals as a bloc than as a single country – as shown by every deal we have made since Brexit, all better for the other countries. Boy from ceiber The EU does not need us The EU does not need us and is managing well without us. There is no reason whatsoever why we could make demands. We lost the excellent terms we had and will not regain them. Once again, thank you, Brexiters. There are 20 countries in the Eurozone. They are doing better economically than the others. Anyone with a modicum of common sense would see that a common currency facilitates trade by removing conversions and encourages tourism. I would be quite happy to shed the old pound, an exhausted currency, to join the euro. I fear this would not please the Little Englanders who voted Leave. Since we do not have politicians with spines, I fear rejoining may take a long, long time. HASTINGSPIER It's a matter of UK security I don't have an issue with using euros or having Schengen area rights and obligations. Joining the EU is now a matter of UK security. If EU membership provides economic, social, and military security (now that the US has gone rogue), then it's a price worth taking. No country is ever truly independent. The question remains: why does Starmer still have his head in the sand over EU membership? Labour should be laying the ground to rejoin the EU and for it to be part of the Labour manifesto for the next general election. Bolbi The EU is the only way All for it. Schengen, the euro, the single, common market – the whole thing. If the UK is serious and wants to catalyse, reinvigorate, and drive up economic growth, the EU is the only way. Nothing else has the capability of matching or improving on it. EU free trade without borders created UK growth above all else over the last 50 years, with hundreds of thousands of small and medium businesses having the best ever opportunities to export without restrictions, along with UK corporates receiving far more preferential terms. UK regions would once again have access to the European Regional Development Fund instead of relying on foreseen unreliable, sparse, pitiful UK government funding – something UK regions have suffered harshly from since Brexit. Farming and fisheries will once again see a return to free and easy EU access, improving their opportunities, and have access to EU funding again, which is much better than the unreliable, sparse, pitiful UK government funding. Further, the City of London financial sector will be able to abate the exodus of firms and professionals, which can only be good. The UK needs to get a grip, see common sense, and reverse the horrendous loss of 15 per cent GDP since leaving the EU. WhatServices The greatest revenge would be Britain back in the EU It's not merely a matter of the pound and Schengen. We also had an opt-out from ever closer union, meaning in the end the EU could theoretically have consisted of the other 27 countries as one, and us – but we would have had almost the same voting rights as all the rest. Additionally, we cannot hope for such an advantageous financial package. Not unreasonably, the people of Europe do not think, on the whole, that having rejected them we should have the full benefit of what we rejected. If the roles were reversed, be honest – who here would think differently? However, I would say to them that if you want revenge upon the Brexiters like Farage and BoJo and their helpers… if you want to see Gove and Cummings humiliated and see Trump as well as Putin receive a poke in the eye, then offer us precisely the terms we had on leaving – the only caveat being perhaps that we wouldn't be able to veto others from joining for the following 10 years. Because the greatest revenge upon them would be to see Britain back in the EU. The only greater revenge would be that, plus they all end up in jail for treason – which they entirely deserve. Want to share your views? Simply register your details below. Once registered, you can comment on the day's top stories for a chance to be featured. Alternatively, click 'log in' or 'register' in the top right corner to sign in or sign up.
The National
2 hours ago
- The National
EU risks international law breach with Israel gas deal, campaigners say
An investigation by Global Witness, an international NGO that focuses on the environment and human rights, has claimed the deal "tramples over Palestinian rights" and helps "bankroll Israel's genocide in Gaza". The gas deal was signed in 2022 in the wake of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, as the EU took a clear stance on ending "the era of Russian fossil fuels" and sought to diversify its gas supply. According to Israel's energy ministry, the agreement enables substantial Israeli gas exports to Europe. The route for this gas to be exported from Israel to the EU relies on a pipeline, operated in part by a subsidiary of US oil giant Chevron, which crosses Palestinian territory without regard for international conventions. READ MORE: Protest announced for Donald Trump's UK state visit The deal signed between Israel, Egypt and the EU, which has come up for renewal this June, is likely to make the EU complicit in breaches of international law, the investigation said. Campaigners are calling for member states to immediately end imports of Israeli gas, and for all state and corporate actors involved in the running of the pipeline to be held legally accountable. Sarah Biermann Becker, senior investigator at Global Witness, said: "Since Russia's invasion of Ukraine, the EU has tried to position itself as a defender of human rights, but its continued business with Israel exposes a deplorable double standard. 'What we've effectively seen is the EU swapping out one human rights abuser for another – pursuing a gas deal that tramples over Palestinian rights and effectively helps bankroll Israel's genocide on Gaza. 'As Israel's relentless and brutal aggression towards the Palestinian people shows no sign of abating, the EU must act – it must halt all gas imports via the EMG pipeline immediately and cancel the trade agreement. The EU's complicity in Israel's human rights violations must end now.' Global Witness said it received in-depth legal advice from expert lawyers outlining multiple possible breaches of international law posed by the pipeline. Expert lawyers outlined that if the EMG pipeline breaches international law, the EU would also be complicit in these breaches – through both the gas deal itself and through purchase of gas transported through the pipeline. READ MORE: BBC breached editorial guidelines in Gaza documentary, review finds Speaking in a personal capacity, MEP Lynn Boylan, who chairs the European Parliament Delegation for Relations with Palestine, said: "This shameful deal should never have been signed. 'As we see the Israeli Government and the US Government openly discussing a resource grab in Gaza, the EU cannot be complicit and must now take the opportunity to end this shameful agreement once and for all."
