Debate contribution: EU Relationship
Debate contribution by Mr Philip McGuigan on .
- MLA
- Mr Philip McGuigan
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 18 November 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Opposition Business
- Heading
- EU Relationship
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4655905
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-Leas-Cheann Comhairle.
In 2016, the vast majority of people in the North voted to remain in the EU. They did so in the knowledge that, politically and economically, it was in our best interests. For reasons that are for others to explain, both prior to the Brexit referendum and after, some wanted to pursue a strategy of political self-sabotage on a grand scale, regardless of the implications for peace on the island or the prosperity of businesses, communities and citizens in the North. Three minutes is clearly not enough time to allow me to give the detail of the last eight years, but suffice it to say that the results of Brexit, whether in Britain or Ireland, were never going to be positive. That is a fact that, hopefully, even its initial proponents across the Chamber can, at least in private, now recognise.
Thankfully for those of us who live in the North of Ireland, our majority voice was heard during the negotiations, and, more importantly, on the EU side at least, our voice was listened to.
In the negotiations, the terms and conditions of the Good Friday Agreement were front and centre: the EU was not going to allow peace in Ireland to be the collateral damage of English or British nationalism. The protocol and further agreements offer us and, in particular, our businesses protections from Brexit's worst excesses, as they allow for dual market access. We all need to be mindful of that fact when, in a few weeks, a democratic consent motion on the continuation of the current arrangements, which bring protections, certainty and stability for our business, is voted on in the Chamber. The current arrangements are not perfect. As I said, Brexit could not be anything other than negative. Community and voluntary groups, businesses, sporting organisations and rural communities have lost access to millions in EU funding. Our young people are losing out on the full benefits of the ERASMUS scheme. The issues with veterinary medicines and the need for a sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) agreement between Britain and the EU are problems that need to be resolved. The electronic travel authorisation that is being imposed by the British Government will undoubtedly disrupt and damage the number of visitors travelling northwards and impact on our tourism and hospitality sectors. We will support the amendment, which mentions most of that and adds value to the original motion. In the short term, the certainty and stability in our relationship with the EU that the protocol offers are vital. I would welcome relationships between the EU and the new British Government becoming closer, should that transpire and bring with it positive outcomes for the North in the medium term. Ultimately, I believe the majority of people in the North want, as they indicated in 2016, to be part of the European Union. The conversation that we are having today about future relationships with the EU, in tandem with the ongoing conversation about constitutional change in a new Ireland, will, I believe, bring about the long-term solution: a new, democratic Ireland, with all its citizens, North and South, benefiting from EU membership.
528 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 (0.70).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.62).
- 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 | 0.22 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.16 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.29 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.06 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.70 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.17 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.62 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.03 |
| Adopts it | 0.35 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.97 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.02 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 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.