Debate contribution: Dual Market Access

Debate contribution by Mr Matthew O'Toole on 18 June 2024.

MLA

Mr Matthew O'Toole

Party at the time

Social Democratic and Labour Party

Date

18 June 2024

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Opposition Business

Heading

Dual Market Access

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4496988

Read the official Assembly record

Text

If you believe in the perfect fetish of sovereignty at all costs, and that is the thing that you focus on exclusively, and you think that is how you define identity and citizenship, I accept that. I have also accepted and acknowledged that, for many unionists, the protocol has presented difficulties. It would be nice if the Member would acknowledge that, for many of us, Brexit presented profound challenges to how we see ourselves as Europeans, and, for many of us who believe deeply in an open border on this island, it was profoundly offensive. He constantly pushes the idea of constitutional perfection. We do not have constitutional perfection here, because we are a complicated place. I believe in a new Ireland without a border on it; he does not. I respect his position. I would appreciate it if he would respect that many of us are offended by the very fact of Brexit itself, but I want to move on and make some remarks in relation to the broader debate. Our motion was long. We made the Clerk read out an entirely long motion because we wanted it to be detailed, to be specific and to have multiple aspects and clauses to it. What does that mean? It means that the motion offers real opportunity not just for maximising dual market access but for creating a substantive plan for dual market access and how we leverage it and benefit from it. I want to reflect on a couple of the comments that were made. I welcome the fact that Mr Delargy acknowledged that this was a unique opportunity for the North. I will touch on some of what Deborah Erskine said. She is coming back into the Chamber now: perfect timing. Deborah Erskine said that the UK internal market is important and that our motion did not reflect that. Au contraire: it states that the movement of goods from east to west is critically important. It also states that the UK Government will have a role in dual market access and maximising its benefits. That is therefore an unfair reflection of what our motion states. Mrs Erskine also said that article 14 has nothing to do with benefits from the protocol. I do not think that that is true either. I do not think that there is any fair reading of what article 14 of the protocol states. It does not suggest that it could not have the role that we outline. By the way, some of the points that are made repeatedly about the lack of democratic input are and were designed to be answered specifically by article 14 of the protocol, which offers a role for the North/South Ministerial Council, a body that is democratically accountable to Members of the Chamber. I am afraid, therefore, that that point just does not stand. She talked about mutual recognition. As has been said by the Minister, mutual recognition has been, with the greatest possible respect, virtually laughed out of court by any serious economist or trade specialist, particularly in relation to the island of Ireland, which has very specific needs and requirements. It is important to say that Mrs Erskine represents Fermanagh and South Tyrone, a border constituency. There are cattle that graze in County Monaghan and County Fermanagh. That is not an unusual thing. She will be aware that there are cross-border farms, and, of course, things such as our dairy industry are entirely cross-border. Whether or not you believe in constitutional change, you cannot pretend that the two jurisdictions on the island of Ireland are on opposite sides of the world; they are not. Eóin Tennyson pointed to Almac, which is a striking example of a regulated company, as he said. It is the case that those that operate in highly regulated environments, including pharmaceuticals, are exactly the kinds of companies that are well placed to benefit from the protocol, because they have substantive regulatory operations and may want the political and regulatory certainty that comes from our protocol arrangements. He is also right when he says that political certainty and some stability here are critical to us being able to leverage investment. I welcome very strongly the input of Steve Aiken, who acknowledged that there is a degree of balance in our motion. It is important to acknowledge that, as Steve Aiken said, for a significant period, IDA Ireland had been strikingly focused on the needs of the Republic. I do not dispute that at all. In fact, I think that I said it in my opening remarks. It is the case that IDA Ireland and Invest NI have operated as competitors and rivals. Clearly, that does not have to be the case. There is the potential for partnership, and our motion is all about delivering on that sense of partnership. There were a number of inputs from other Members. David Honeyford talked about the benefits, and he outlined the Alliance Party's position. I reassure him that the SDLP has been talking about this for some time too, but I am glad that we are on the same page. It is important that parties can collaborate on such matters. Since it came up on a couple of occasions with my dear colleagues to my right, I want to touch briefly on the point about us rejoining the EU. As someone who worked in Whitehall for years and worked there in the middle of the Brexit years — that is, in large part, why I am here now — I think that, for the foreseeable future, it is strikingly, if not vanishingly, unlikely that the UK will rejoin the EU. I genuinely wish that it were otherwise for a whole range of reasons, including personal ones. I do not think that it is very likely, in part because significant trade-offs would have to be made. An enormous amount of political courage and political bandwidth would be required for it to happen. The truth is — if people were honest with themselves, they would know this — that the only meaningful way back into the EU — to be clear, this is not what today's debate is about — is constitutional change on this island and a new Ireland. That is my position. I recognise that others may differ from it, but I think that it is the only realistic one. To be clear, that is not what this motion is about. The motion is not about the constitution; it is about our current constitutional position and maximising the benefits that we have and can see from dual market access. As I said in my remarks, we are a complicated place. We are a dual place, in many ways. Dual market access reflects that dualism and the fact that we face both ways. We face both ways politically and culturally in terms of allegiance. Why not derive an economic benefit from it? I welcome the fact that the Minister has appraised and is supportive of the broad principles of the motion. We have sought to be constructive in opposition the whole way through our time here.

I acknowledge the fact that the Minister is engaged on the all-island economy and has committed significant time to cross-border work. He will recognise that we will want to hold him to his word on some of that stuff and to keep corresponding with him about the implementation of the specifics of the motion, which calls specifically for an action plan to be provided to the Assembly later in the year. We would like to see the Minister provide that in some form and will ask him for that. Let me be clear, however, that I welcome his intent and that we look forward to that intent being implemented through action.

I also point out that the use of article 14 and the making of representations to the NSMC is not to prioritise the NSMC over any other body. Any other body that exists under the Windsor framework or even that exists more informally is welcome. I would like to see those of us in the Chamber having observer status in the EU Parliament and being able to make representations there. I see some raised eyebrows across the Chamber: I recognise that that is not universally popular, but I am up for any opportunity that allows us to input or improve our input into how the protocol works and, ultimately, to maximise the economic benefits. Those economic benefits are real; we enjoy them already. Think how great they could be if there were political stability here and proper buy-in. That would not compromise or undermine anyone's constitutional position; quite the opposite, in my view. I commend today's first Opposition day motion to the Assembly. I thank everybody for their constructive contributions, and I very much hope that the motion will pass.

1,479 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 10:37 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