Debate contribution: EU Relationship
Debate contribution by Dr Steve Aiken OBE on .
- MLA
- Dr Steve Aiken OBE
- Party at the time
- Ulster Unionist Party
- Date
- 18 November 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Opposition Business
- Heading
- EU Relationship
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4655941
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I have two interests to declare. First, I sit on the euphemistically named Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee. Most Members will be aware of my view of that Committee. Secondly, for the avoidance of doubt, I voted Remain. I declare that in case people think all unionists were part of a monolithic block. The Ulster Unionist Party will support neither the motion nor the amendment. In the short period of time that I have, I will concentrate mostly on the amendment. As a member of the Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee, I notice that Mr Tennyson and Ms Nicholl are in the Chamber. As much as I enjoyed their company in Brussels last week — sorry, the week before; I need to be correct for Hansard — the key point is that on issues such as the EU waste management regulations, Alliance voted in the Committee against conducting investigations into their potentially significant impacts on Northern Ireland. The only Alliance Committee member who voted to support some form of investigation is no longer an MLA. Those decisions, as any dispassionate observer looking in on the Committee would see, are not because of the legal advice or what the industry has said. On many occasions, we have been told that the regulations will have significant impacts on Northern Ireland. To paraphrase Mr Tennyson at every meeting on virtually everything — I stand corrected; everything — Brexit has a cost. He then votes against, or does not vote for, an investigation. That is not representative of what a democratic scrutiny Committee should do.
Thank you. Do I get an extra minute?
Oh come on, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. OK, I will speed on then.
Definitely.
Thank you very much indeed, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Indeed, that is probably the exception that proves the rule. We also need to bear in mind that the SDLP and Alliance both called for the full and rigorous implementation of the protocol. What has changed? Surely Alliance are not reverting to cakeism. The vehemence with which the Alliance leadership, particularly the deputy leader of the party before Mr Tennyson —.
Certainly.
No. While some will welcome the Damascene change in direction by the Alliance Party that the amendment points out, the reality, based on the voting behaviour in the Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee, is very different. Actions, Alliance, not words —.
No. Actions, Alliance, not words, would make your amendment more convincing. The motion itself has a degree of merit, but we cannot support the options for representation that were identified in the SDLP press release and in its comments on the motion. We have left the European Union. Anyone with even the remotest concept of how that organisation works will clearly understand the improbability of our getting any representative voice in the EU Parliament. There is no strand four to the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement. We need to work to make sure that the Irish Sea border impositions are removed. Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. That was four minutes on the dot.
507 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: 0.18 (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).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.91).
- 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 | 0.16 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.07 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.31 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.17 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.58 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.18 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.91 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.04 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.02 |
| Adopts it | 0.03 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.83 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.07 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.06 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.03 |
| Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice) | 0.01 |
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.