Debate contribution: Regulation (EU) 2023/2419: Applicability Motion
Debate contribution by Mr Eóin Tennyson on .
- MLA
- Mr Eóin Tennyson
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 29 April 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- Regulation (EU) 2023/2419: Applicability Motion
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4485846
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Like others, I intend to be uncharacteristically brief on the motion. My party's overriding economic priority throughout the Brexit process has been to protect and uphold Northern Ireland's dual market access, giving us a unique and privileged competitive advantage. Sustaining that dual market access will require parties to take a pragmatic approach to applicability motions and to democratic scrutiny more broadly, prioritising the substance of motions over party politics or ideology. If we are to take full advantage of the opportunities before us, we owe it to our business community to offer the maturity, certainty and stability that it so desires. In that vein, I support the motion, and, at the outset, I welcome the fact that the First and deputy First Ministers have managed to jointly table the motion on this occasion. It is a genuinely positive step, and I believe — I hope, rather — that we have crossed the Rubicon in our approach to dealing with EU law, which is important, albeit technical, in this instance. Organic products are a highly regulated area. For a product to bear an organic logo, it must be subject to a fairly robust process. The motion before us is about a specific area: organic pet food. In effect, the regulation provides additional flexibility to producers, meaning that products containing 95% organic ingredients can be marketed as such. Whilst there are no pet food manufacturers in Northern Ireland currently registered as organic, we have to be cognisant of the fact that there may well be those who wish to enter the market in the future, and the regulation guarantees them that additional flexibility. The regulation not only brings pet food into line with standards for human and livestock food, which sounds eminently sensible, but enhances alignment across these islands, moving us to a common production standard across the UK and EU to ensure that any pet food producers who seek to operate from Northern Ireland will continue to have the benefit of accessing both markets. Again, that is a huge advantage. In some ways, it is small, but it is not insignificant, and we should all be advocates of it. It is, however, a matter of regret that applicability motions are another element of Assembly procedure that is subject to cross-community vote. When it comes to Brexit, we talk on numerous occasions about the importance of cross-community consent. However, I am conscious that the people whom I represent are not properly included in that process. My party will continue to articulate and raise concerns about that issue. We are happy to support the motion.
432 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: 0.07 (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 (0.70).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.98).
- 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 | 0.07 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.05 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.70 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.07 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.98 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.02 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.79 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.19 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.02 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 10:02 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.