Debate contribution: EU Relationship
Debate contribution by Mr Eóin Tennyson on .
- MLA
- Mr Eóin Tennyson
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 18 November 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Opposition Business
- Heading
- EU Relationship
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4655892
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I propose the Alliance amendment, which would support and enhance the motion by expanding on two fundamental issues: the need for a comprehensive UK-EU veterinary and sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) agreement and an electronic travel authorisation exemption for tourists crossing the land border. As has been well rehearsed, Alliance opposed leaving the EU, but thanks to the recklessly hard Brexit pursued by the Conservative Government, aided and abetted by the DUP, special arrangements are now necessary to address the particular challenges posed to our economy. There is no escaping that fundamental truth, and so continuation of the Windsor framework, when the Assembly votes in the coming weeks, is essential to uphold our dual market access, protect the Good Friday Agreement and respect our international obligations. Any review that follows, to be clear, must command the respect of people from across our community and a broad swathe of political opinion and must not be the kind of sweetheart deal that we have seen between the UK Government and the DUP.
I am concerned about the impact that Brexit had on cross-community relations and on the Good Friday Agreement when the DUP rode a coach and horses through that agreement and completely undermined it. The Member needs to look in the mirror rather than to cast aspersions on those of us on these Benches post Brexit
Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. The truth is that the overwhelming majority of people and businesses here want to see pragmatic solutions, not further instability and uncertainty. The commitment of the new UK Government to reset relationships with the EU is welcome, and we know that, through constructive and solution-focused engagement with our partners, flexibilities can be forthcoming and solutions found. Of course, the clearest way to address the additional trade borders and barriers created by Brexit would be for the UK to return to the EU or, at the very least, to the single market and the customs union. Short of that, however, a comprehensive UK-EU veterinary and SPS agreement is the clearest way to benefit our economy, producers and consumers. That is why we have been calling for such an agreement since January 2021, and I am proud that Alliance was the first party to do so. Industry strongly supports an agreement, recognising the opportunity to address a range of challenges from reducing checks, form-filling and barriers to trade to aiding with the movement of pets and supporting access to veterinary medicines. Secondly, our amendment calls for an ETA exemption for tourists who arrive in Northern Ireland via the land border. Tourism is a vital strand of our economy, and the majority of international visitors to Northern Ireland arrive via Dublin Airport; indeed, the island of Ireland is marketed internationally as a single entity. Any additional bureaucracy will serve as a disincentive to tourists to come north. With the ETA roll-out imminent, swift action is essential to safeguard the tourism industry and the economy of Northern Ireland from unintended consequences. As we have done throughout the entire Brexit process, Alliance will continue to engage constructively to maximise the benefits and reap the rewards that can be derived from dual market access and as presented in the Windsor framework. We will continue in that constructive spirit until such times as Northern Ireland and the UK are returned to the European Union.
563 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: 0.17 (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 (0.89).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.82).
- 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 | 0.11 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.06 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.03 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.18 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.16 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.89 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.17 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.82 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.09 |
| Adopts it | 0.09 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.76 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.19 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.04 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:31 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.