Debate contribution: Regulation (EU) 2023/2419: Applicability Motion
Debate contribution by Dr Steve Aiken OBE on .
- MLA
- Dr Steve Aiken OBE
- Party at the time
- Ulster Unionist Party
- Date
- 29 April 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- Regulation (EU) 2023/2419: Applicability Motion
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4485848
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I congratulate the First and deputy First Ministers on taking an interest in the applicability motion. Members will remember the last applicability motion that came before the Chamber. I raised several questions from the Floor about when somebody was going to take ownership of that applicability motion, but no one did until the last possible minute. Rightly, it was rejected. On this occasion, the Ulster Unionist Party will support the applicability motion. To do otherwise would create a divergence from the rest of the United Kingdom. In the complexity that is EU rules and regulations, Members need to realise that, on some occasions, we cannot be seen to diverge from the rest of our nation. It is important that we recognise these issues. I welcome Mr Tennyson to the Democratic Scrutiny Committee, whose members will know that, at that Committee, on several occasions, I have raised the point that we are not curious enough about the regulations that are coming forward. I am glad to see that our Committee now takes a more proactive approach; indeed, we have already heard the issues about dental amalgam. I hope that those issues will be raised in the Joint Committee and that we do not get to the point where we have to debate them on the Floor. The issue should be sorted before we go ahead. I encourage the Chair and members of our Committee to remain curious, because many elements coming through will challenge many in the Chamber not just on an intercommunity basis but for all of us on where we are likely to be. It is important that we continue to do our horizon scanning of what is going on. I am glad that the First Minister and deputy First Minister are here. They need to look closely at how we resource what we are doing. We need to ensure that our office in Brussels is ready to interact as legislation comes through. We also need to make sure that we have sufficiently well-trained staff supporting the Northern Ireland Executive and the Democratic Scrutiny Committee who understand the legislation and the rules as they come through. As a warning, First Minister and deputy First Minister, I have been in communication and conversation with our friends in Norway, who have a lot of difficulty in dealing with EU rules and regulations, even though they have to accept most of them. I also took the matter up recently with a senior Estonian politician, who said exactly the same thing. We need to be more proactive; we need to look at how we resource these things; and we need to be prepared to work closely with all stakeholders to make sure that we understand the challenges that we are about to face. Once again, I congratulate the First Minister and deputy First Minister for actually taking ownership of something. For that, we should all be grateful.
484 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
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: 0.06 (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 (0.77).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.97).
- 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 | 0.10 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.04 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.06 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.77 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.06 | At or below not-qualifying threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.97 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.01 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.02 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.75 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.17 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.08 |
| 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 reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.