Member's statement: Brexit: 10th Anniversary

Member's statement by Mr David Honeyford on .

MLA
Mr David Honeyford
Party at the time
Alliance Party
Date
23 June 2026
Type
Member's statement
Business
Members' Statements
Heading
Brexit: 10th Anniversary
Assembly identifier
Official Report component 5636747

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Ten years ago, the UK voted to leave the EU, and Northern Ireland was removed from the EU against its will. People will have voted for many reasons, but people were lied to. They were lied to in that referendum, and, no matter what way people voted, everybody can agree that the decade that followed has been an absolute disaster: a complete act of self-harm; a decade of a failing UK economy; £90 billion of tax revenues that have not been collected and that have come straight off health and education; and ordinary people being hit in their pockets with higher taxation. There has been next-to-no economic growth on a UK scale, so ordinary people are poorer, and we have seen the rise — a real, worrying rise— of the far right and populism in our communities, dividing our communities. The biggest cost of Brexit has been instability, which scares off investment. Since the Brexit referendum, the UK has had seven Prime Ministers, and we have had the Assembly collapse twice. Political uncertainty has become normal. However, when politics becomes unstable, ordinary people pay the price. Ordinary people are paying the price for the Brexit parties' decisions in the House, and those parties have been willing to let ordinary people pay ever since. Every decision that has come to the House that has involved any form of collaboration or the benefits that we can gain from having dual market access has been voted down by the DUP, the Ulster Unionists and the TUV. Many families have spent the past decade worse off, and the loudest supporters of Brexit have punished them, while we have the likes of Farage appearing to be prospering personally. Ten years on, the question is not whether Brexit was right or wrong, because the evidence is clear for everyone to see. Rather, the question is how we move forward, because we find ourselves in a unique position, with dual market access, to both the UK and EU markets, and the opportunity to sell the region that we all enjoy. We need to maximise that opportunity as best we can for our people. Members, do not tell me that you want Northern Ireland to work and then do everything that you can to stop that from being the case. We need more North/South collaboration. We need to see more happening, because east-west collaboration is already happening. We need more collaboration to grow our economy further, but talk is cheap. People say such lines on the news but then come to the Chamber and vote against collaboration. The lesson must be that we need less division, more stability and more collaboration. We need to grow our economy, create opportunities for ordinary people and put more money back into their pockets. We need to focus on them, not on ideology.

471 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

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: 0.14 (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).
  • Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.64).
  • No identity-based framing was identified (0.78).
  • 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

Probability that each statement is true of this text (0 = no, 1 = yes). A criterion counts as met at 0.60 or above.
QuestionProbabilityMet?
Identity framing0.10No
Sectarian or communal antagonism0.07No
Cultural grievance politics0.02No
Dog-whistle messaging0.15No
Controversy escalation0.08No
Legitimate policy scrutiny0.64Yes
Overall judgement0.14At or below not-flagging threshold
Context and attribution (stance)
OptionProbability
No identity-based framing (chosen)0.78
Reports or questions it0.00
Criticises or condemns it0.21
Adopts it0.01
Subject area (top five)
SubjectProbability
Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty0.91
No identity-related subject0.05
Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations0.03
Immigration, asylum, race, ethnicity and Travellers0.01
Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials0.00

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.

Challenge this classification