Motion or amendment: Rejecting the New EU Customs Fee on Small Parcels - Amendment 1
Motion or amendment by Mr David Honeyford on .
- MLA
- Mr David Honeyford
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 9 January 2026
- Type
- Motion or amendment
- Business
- Motion Amendment · Private Members' Motion · to “Rejecting the New EU Customs Fee on Small Parcels”
- Heading
- Rejecting the New EU Customs Fee on Small Parcels - Amendment 1
- Assembly identifier
- Document 465493
Read the official Assembly record Open Data source
Text
Rejecting the New EU Customs Fee on Small Parcels - Amendment 1
Leave out all after ‘1 July 2026;’ and insert: ‘recognises the need to mitigate any potential impact on goods moving from Great Britain to Northern Ireland; highlights the folly of those parties who supported leaving the European Union; welcomes the additional safeguards and protections provided under the Windsor Framework; urges the UK Government to ensure Northern Ireland’s interests are appropriately represented in engagements with the EU; and calls on the UK Government to seek negotiations on a UK-EU Customs Union to eliminate Brexit bureaucracy and boost economic growth without delay.’
102 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Also tabled by
Each MLA who tabled or co-signed this item has their own record:
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not qualifying”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.23 (qualifying needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not qualifying).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.72).
- 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-qualifying 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 | 0.11 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.08 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.23 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.19 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.72 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.23 | At or below not-qualifying threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.90 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.01 |
| Adopts it | 0.09 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.91 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.09 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 09:18 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9. The text was identical to an already-assessed record, so the same answers were reused.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.