Debate contribution: EU Relationship

Debate contribution by Mr David Brooks on 18 November 2024.

MLA

Mr David Brooks

Party at the time

Democratic Unionist Party

Date

18 November 2024

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Opposition Business

Heading

EU Relationship

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4655915

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Not one unionist in this place supported the protocol, which was cheered on by those who sought to overturn a democratic referendum. Unionists have long known that some embrace the notion of democratic consent only when it suits them. It is clear to unionists that those in this place who speak loudest of the Belfast Agreement, as though it were a holy text, are hypocrites on this issue. During the Brexit process, they and their comrades spoke ad nauseam of the need to uphold the Belfast Agreement in all its parts, not only in the letter, they said, but in spirit. That agreement means much more to those on the Opposition Benches than it does to me, yet, when it comes to the democratic consent mechanism, it seems as though the SDLP and others were content for it to deliberately and by design dump the principle of cross-community consent that was so fundamental in 1998. Unionist communities across this country noted that those parties value safeguards only when they are for nationalists: majoritarianism is the order of the day when it suits their own ends. The nature of the democratic consent mechanism, like much of the protocol and Windsor framework, was imposed without the consent — without the cross-community consent, certainly — that, since 1998, we have been told was imperative to maintain the confidence of both communities and the legitimacy of government here. When those on other Benches next intervene, with sanctimony, to make the much-rehearsed point about the impact of this place being down, perhaps they will reflect on how their corrosive contempt for unionist concerns and violation of established governmental norms led to that. That issue will see MLAs compelled for the first time in decades to vote on a simple majority basis on an issue that is significant and contentious. The DUP continues to believe that the barriers to trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland are unacceptable. The Windsor framework, even with the progress made in 'Safeguarding the Union', did not secure all our negotiating objectives nor remedy all the issues with the protocol. Northern Ireland should have left the EU on the same basis as the rest of the United Kingdom. We continue to work towards that aim. December's vote, although flawed, will be an opportunity to practically demonstrate that commitment in cooperation with other unionists. We will vote against the continuation of the current arrangements, but we are realistic about the outcome where the process requires only a simple majority. Labour's reset in relations cannot be at the expense of honouring and advancing the commitments that formed the basis of the restoration of these institutions. My party secured in law the commitment to an independent review of the framework where there is no cross-community consent and to completion of that review within six months rather than the two years previously allowed under the Government's original unilateral declaration. A strengthened independent review should be the basis on which Labour honours its stated commitment to protect the UK's internal market.

Yes.

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

Assessment

Qualifying Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty

Second assessment

Jev’s answers did not settle this record, so a second model, claude-opus-5-5, read the same text (without the MLA’s name or party) and gave its reasons on 21 October 2026. How the second assessment works

Verdict

Qualifying

Public interest or divisiveness

Mixed

Against the published rubric

The contribution makes a substantive constitutional argument about the democratic consent mechanism, the lack of cross-community consent, trade barriers and an independent review of the Windsor Framework. However, much of it frames the issue as unionists against nationalists and attacks opposing parties as a group: they are called "hypocrites", said to "value safeguards only when they are for nationalists", accused of "corrosive contempt for unionist concerns", and said to have dropped cross-community consent "deliberately and by design". The rubric allows argument about how consent rules affect a community, but not when it is put as a claim that a community is being deliberately targeted or as an identity-based attack on a party. That threshold is crossed here.

Public interest or divisiveness

The later part deals with real policy: the coming vote, the strength of the independent review, and protecting the internal market. The earlier part is mainly communal point-scoring. It casts opponents as hostile to unionists and presents the arrangements as imposed by one community on another. Both elements are substantial, but the identity-based attack is a central and deliberate part of the speech rather than incidental.

Jev’s structured answers

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 reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification