Debate contribution: Great Britain to Northern Ireland Trade

Debate contribution by Mr Matthew O'Toole on 16 September 2024.

MLA

Mr Matthew O'Toole

Party at the time

Social Democratic and Labour Party

Date

16 September 2024

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

Great Britain to Northern Ireland Trade

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4532629

Read the official Assembly record

Text

No doubt, I will have the opportunity to take interventions during my speech. I do not intend to speak for all that long.

I have spent many minutes, perhaps even hours, on my feet in the Assembly Chamber talking about Brexit, and our post-Brexit arrangements, in many ways, is what brought me into politics in the first place.

There are a few specific points that I want to make, some of which have been covered by Members who spoke previously. I share some of Declan Kearney's insight into the motion. I agree with some of the thrust of the motion, but it is strikingly absent in a few key areas. Nevertheless, in the spirit of goodwill and a collective spirit of making representations and trying to get the best possible outcomes for all our businesses, we will not be dividing on it. I hope that some of the things that are aspired to in the motion are acted upon. I will make the point that we are able to debate this motion. We are able to allow it to go through, presumably without a Division, because — shock horror! — we have a Northern Ireland Assembly, here and sitting, in which people who are elected to speak for the workers, people and businesses of this society can come to this Chamber and talk about issues facing businesses. Those issues include disruptions to trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. We were not able to do any of that for nearly two years after the 2022 Assembly election. It just goes to show that, if you stand for election, believe in devolution and want to use your mandate, the place to do it is in this Chamber. Collapsing the devolved Government will not help anyone. That point has to be made again and again. I know that it is probably not comfortable for Members across the Chamber to hear that, including Members who very enthusiastically advocated Brexit, but it is true. To come to the point about GB/NI trade, it is important to say a few things. First, it is not a churlish or facetious thing to say that the process of what is called hard Brexit — ie the UK leaving the single market and customs union — is, by pretty much any standard, the single biggest erection of trade barriers that any modern state has inflicted upon itself. That is the starting point. There is no example since the Second World War — none that I am aware of — of any major economy deciding to effectively impose a form of low-level or quite high-level economic sanctions upon itself, so there will be consequences. The movement of goods will become more difficult. It is also true that the movement of not just goods but services and, indeed, in many ways, unfortunately, possibly people has become more difficult on this island. It is often said that there are new barriers to trade across the Irish Sea — there are some; I wish that that had not happened — but it is also true to say that people who trade in services across the island of Ireland have seen new barriers and new disruptions. There are new regulatory divergences in the present and, potentially, in the future. I would have liked to see those reflected in the motion. The motion specifically talks about a sanitary and phytosanitary agreement. I would have liked to see the motion be slightly more specific in calling for the new UK Government to be ambitious in negotiating a sanitary and phytosanitary agreement with the EU. I can see the former Economy Minister. I am happy to give way if she wants to correct me, or, perhaps, she does not agree with me. It would be a huge step forward were the UK to agree an ambitious sanitary and phytosanitary agreement and a veterinary agreement with the EU. I presume that she would like to see that because it would radically minimise the barriers that exist between GB and NI as there would be much less disruption. We need that because it would be impossible to have separate SPS arrangements on the island of Ireland. No serious person who is involved in agri-food thinks that you could operate two different SPS standards on this island. It is impossible, and I am happy to give way to a single MLA who wishes to stand up and tell me how you can operate two different standards for livestock or plant goods on this island, because there is not one. No one, since 2016, has ever produced a credible example. We have to have alignment across this island. Whether you are the biggest unionist, the biggest nationalist or the biggest pro-European Remainer, it is impracticable otherwise. We simply cannot have it. There are cattle that graze in both Fermanagh and Monaghan. Whether you like it or not, there are, so we cannot operate separate standards. The way in which we need to address that is through greater alignment between the UK and the EU. I hope that, in addition to some of the actions that are outlined in the motion being taken, we will start to see people properly get behind closer alignment between the UK and the EU. Of course, the best possible alignment of all is rejoining the EU. I do not think that that is going to happen, but —

— there is one way to rejoin the EU, and that debate is for another day.

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

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:03 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