Windsor ​Framework's remit is 'far greater' than trade, and will likely impact UK Supreme Court sex ruling - DUP MP

​He says Northern Ireland will be “forced to stick with EU legislation” on equality issues – and has raised concerns about the deal’s impact on the recent UK Supreme Court decision on the definition of a woman in law.

Northern Ireland is required to “keep pace” with certain EU directives on employment rights and gender discrimination – including in relation to transgender people – due to commitments made by the UK government in the original Northern Ireland Protocol.

That has the potential to set up a clash between the direction the UK is taking on trans issues and the EU rules the province must follow in certain areas.

The Equality Commission – which is responsible for ensuring the UK government lives up to its commitments in the Windsor Framework – says it is examining its impact on the Supreme Court’s ruling.

Mr Wilson says that the issues is similar to those in recent court rulings on immigration and legacy cases, where UK government legislation was deemed by the courts to be unenforceable in Northern Ireland.

The East Antrim MP told the News Letter: “As time goes on, the pressures for change in Northern Ireland will become greater, because we’ll be forced to stick with EU legislation”.

He said the logic of previous judgements show it will likely have an impact in the area covered by the Supreme Court judgement.

“It has applied already an immigration law where some of the immigration changes could not be applied to Northern Ireland because it contravenes the EU human rights legislation.

“The protocol seems to have tied us into that human rights legislation. I think immigration is a good example of where it went beyond the protocol. It goes beyond just the market for goods and the single market rules, it actually goes into human rights legislation.

“The government wouldn't address it in relation to immigration law. They just deny that it was the case. But it piles up the case against not changing the Protocol”.

A UK Government spokesperson said: “Article 2 of the Windsor Framework is a specific commitment to protect rights from diminution as a result of Brexit, which this judgment did not concern.

“Equal opportunities and anti-discrimination law remain devolved matters in Northern Ireland, and the extent of the Equality Act 2010 as set out in law remains unchanged.”

Mr Wilson said that even if the protocol doesn't cover all of the issues set out in the Supreme Court ruling, it creates a chill factor.

“The worry is that since the government seems to be determined not to upset the EU, they will always take the cautious line on these things.

“It’s not just on trade or tax or immigration that we’re being treated differently on – it’s now on equality legislation too”, he said.

While most of the discussion about the Windsor Framework has focused on the Irish Sea trade border it creates, human rights legislation have been included in the deal since its first iteration, the NI Protocol.

On Wednesday, the Equality Commission (ECNI) said that the UK Supreme Court judgment would likely be deemed “highly persuasive” by courts and tribunals here, and was “likely to be followed” where similar issues arise – despite it being in relation to the Equality Act which does not apply here.

Asked about the potential impact of the protocol on the ruling, the Equality Commission said: “This is a detailed and important judgment. At this stage, we are considering the judgment including any potential implications that may arise in relation to Article 2 of the Windsor Framework.”

Last year, a report by ECNI into the impact of the Windsor Framework in Northern Ireland said that Articles 2 and 13 “require the law in NI to keep pace with any improvements to minimum standards of equality protection” enshrined in EU laws listed in the document.

It said that “This includes the EU equality directives which protect against gender discrimination and which cover employment and vocational training, access to goods and services, and social security and protect against gender discrimination including transgender people.

“The obligation also requires compliance with current and future CJEU case-law. The CJEU has made it clear that ‘to tolerate such discrimination would be tantamount, as regards such a person, to a failure to respect the dignity and freedom to which he or she is entitled, and which the Court has a duty to safeguard’.”