Member's statement: Brexit Referendum: Ten-year Anniversary
Member's statement by Mr Matthew O'Toole on .
- MLA
- Mr Matthew O'Toole
- Party at the time
- Social Democratic and Labour Party
- Date
- 23 June 2026
- Type
- Member's statement
- Business
- Members' Statements
- Heading
- Brexit Referendum: Ten-year Anniversary
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5636721
Read the official Assembly record
Text
It is hard to believe that a decade ago today, on another baking hot day in London, a referendum took place in which the UK voted tragically to leave the European Union. Of course, it bears repeating that Northern Ireland did not vote to leave the European Union; it voted to remain in the European Union but was removed against our will. At that time, the warnings were clear that Northern Ireland would be a victim of Brexit and the complex relations on the island of Ireland and between the islands of Britain and Ireland would be jeopardised. There were warnings that Britain would be a poorer country and less relevant on the world stage. All of those warnings have proved to be true in spades, and I do not think that anybody in the Chamber could dispute that. Brexit is personal for me because, had it not happened, I would not be a politician here today. I am sure that there are probably some in the Chamber who regret Brexit for that reason. I was in 10 Downing Street on 23 June, and, overnight, I became somebody who held an Irish passport and believed in the ultimate bringing together of the two parts of this island. I was working as a UK civil servant, and, in a sense, I represented the complexity of relationships that had been created after 1998 and were underpinned by the common British and Irish membership of the European Union: the idea that we could overcome our tragic, awful history through interdependence and a common purpose through the extraordinary project that was and is the European Union, which provided and underpinned peace on the island of Ireland, although, amazingly, many are still in denial about that. It was the local manifestation of what our former leader John Hume rightly called the greatest peace project in human history: the European Union. Flawed, bureaucratic, legalistic and frustrating as the European Union often is, that extraordinary peace project helped to underpin stability and trust on these islands, and it was lost on 23 June 2016, along with lots of other things, such as a sense that we could work together, rather than operate a zero-sum game of the UK versus Ireland. Gone are the hundreds of billions of pounds in tax revenue and economic growth, and we feel that every day in the squeeze on our public services. Gone is any sense of stability, as we see, again, a new Prime Minister in the UK. We have a choice to make in the future. The SDLP will have a conference on Thursday about change on these islands. The SDLP believes that the best future for the UK would be to rejoin the European Union. That is not likely, but the best choice for Northern Ireland is to rebuild that common purpose and build a new Ireland back inside the European Union. It is why I am in politics; it is an inspiring vision 10 years on, and I look forward to talking to people about it.
508 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.17 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.90).
- Subject area: Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty.
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.32 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.04 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.03 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.08 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.10 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.22 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.17 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.90 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.03 |
| Adopts it | 0.07 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.89 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.04 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.04 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Immigration, asylum, race, ethnicity and Travellers | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 16:07 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.