Windsor Framework and Northern Ireland Protocol: Ian Paisley endorses John Larkin legal report which demands further concessions

John Larkin KC had been asked for legal advice on the deal, which aimed to correct problems with the NI Protocol.

Mr Paisley told the Nolan Show this morning: “It is a very important report and is probably the first serious report out of the gates since the W. F. or Windsor framework was published.

"The authors make a number of conclusions drawn from a legal opinion that they have received. But essentially, I think they do believe that further concessions or components are absolutely necessary, and should be sought for.”

He added: “And that until those components are added to this and there's further negotiations, I don't believe they are recommending that the WF can actually be ultimately supported.

"They think that unionists should continue to use the leverage that has extracted these concessions and that the key aim is to make sure that we get back to the pre 2019 position with regards to the Act of Union and the status of Northern Ireland.

"They find the Stormont brake something which is interesting and worthy of consideration. But they don't believe that anyone in Northern Ireland should have to opt into a trading arrangement with any other part of the UK.”

Mr Paisley told the Nolan Show that he is the parliamentary chair of the group behind the report."What I am doing as the parliamentary chair is facilitating the publication of the first legal opinion on this matter."

He said he just received the report this morning but added his own foreword, which he entitled "Once bitten twice shy".

He added: "We've been here before with the British government."

Asked what his position now is on the Windsor Framework, he replied that the authors had come to the conclusion that The Act of Union "has not been has not been restored to its pre 2019 position".

Asked if he supported the conclusion and whether the deal is acceptable without further additions, he said: " I've already spoken publicly. I mean, I gave my gut reaction. I said this didn't cut the mustard as far as I was concerned. I said that in Parliament, and I've asked questions of the Prime Minister."

The aim of the report, he said, is to allow people to see a legal study on the matter so that people can come to their own conclusions, he added.

He believes the report is right on some points but not on others.

For example, he would take a slightly different view in terms of the Stormont Brake aspect of the deal.

"But there's also other issues which I'm absolutely at one with them on. The protocol has been the biggest threat to the relationship between Great Britain and Northern Ireland in the current climate. And we've got to make sure that that has changed, that is the status and stand that we have taken as unionists.

"We've made sure that we've used that leverage to get changes the changes have been published. When are now assessing are those changes beneficial? And certainly my gut instinct has been that it doesn't cut the mustard, it doesn't go far enough. “But here we have a report and it's actually saying something different to my position. And they are actually saying, Well, that could be add ons and additions here that might help to improve this. And here's a legal opinion that addresses the constitutional issue of the Act of Union.”

READ MORE:

Jamie Bryson: Windsor deal must be rejected but its core parts could be restructured within a constitutionally acceptable framework

Former attorney general for Northern Ireland John Larkin KC concludes Windsor Framework is not compatible with Acts of Union 1800

Sammy Wilson: 'We have already identified a whole range' of government claims about deal which are wrong - such as the 'Stormont brake'