According to Jamie Bryson – sitting in court in London, following the proceedings – John Larkin KC is currently outlining the “equality guarantee” as set out in the Acts of Union. More details are expected soon. The court’s decision is expected sometime in 2023. Clockwise: Jim Allister, Kate Hoey, Ben Habib, Arlene Foster, Steve Aiken The applicants in the case are: TUV leader Jim Allister. former Labor MP Kate Hoey; Brexiteer Ben Habib. Former UUP leader Steve Aiken. and former DUP leader Arlene Foster. They are represented by barrister Colin Dougan, barrister Denise Kiley and former Attorney General for Northern Ireland John Larkin. The applicants put forward the following main arguments: First, that the Protocol is inconsistent with the Acts of Union 1800 – namely Article VI which says that the subjects of Great Britain and Ireland shall be on the same footing as regards trade. Secondly, that the Protocol is inconsistent with the Northern Ireland Act 1998 – in particular the section which says ‘Northern Ireland as a whole remains part of the United Kingdom and shall not cease to exist without the consent of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland votes in a poll…” And thirdly, that the constitutional safeguard in section 42 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which requires Assembly votes to have cross-community support, has been unlawfully undermined. In addition, they claim that the European Convention on Human Rights and EU law had also been breached. In a joint statement ahead of the case, Mr Allister, Ms Hoey and Mr Habib said the High Court hearing was “the culmination of the legal battle against the Union Dissolution Protocol”. They added: “It is very important that these key legal issues are fully tested but, ultimately, the Protocol requires a political defeat by insisting on the line: Stormont or Protocol? “There is no stopping the EU’s determination to get the scourge of the Protocol off our backs.” This morning, Mr Bryson said: “The political implications of this case are huge. If the applicants lose, as in previous tribunals, but prove that the Acts of Union are ‘subordinate’ and that the Belfast Agreement does not in fact protect against constitutional change, then this has huge political consequences. “In many ways, the nightmare scenario would be to win, but on the basis that the Protocol does not breach the Acts of Union. Hard to see how that will happen. The aim is a victory in which the Acts of the Union override the Protocol, making it illegal.” NOTE: The News Letter website briefly ran an article saying the case had been decided this morning. it has not, and the hearings continue. The article – draft case history text with a sample headline – was made public in error.
