Debate contribution: EU Relationship
Debate contribution by Mr Jonathan Buckley on .
- MLA
- Mr Jonathan Buckley
- 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 4656420
Read the official Assembly record
Text
They say that imitation is the greatest form of flattery, and I suppose that that is what we see today. This debate and vote are very much a dry run for what will come in the coming weeks: the vote on the democratic consent mechanism that was enshrined in article 18 of the original protocol and against which I and this party voted and spoke on many occasions. What we have seen in the development of the debate is much revisionism in the Chamber. As my colleague Mr Brooks mentioned, we have heard much reference to the Belfast Agreement, which enshrined at its very heart a cross-community vote. Members will be well aware that, in the vote that we will have, the aspect of cross-community voting will be removed. In other words, it was designed specifically, at the behest of the European Union and with the UK Government surrendering, to have a pre-contrived outcome. That, in itself, is outrageous given the seriousness of the issue that we are discussing today, an issue that has a profound impact on many businesses and, indeed, community life in Northern Ireland. Today and in coming weeks, when we go on to debate and vote on the democratic consent mechanism, the Democratic Unionist Party and I will vote against the continued application of articles 5 to 10 of the Windsor framework or protocol. We have a clear mandate to do so, because we see continued harm being caused to our many businesses throughout Northern Ireland. It is very clear. The DUP believes that continued —
I will in a moment.
The DUP believes not only that continued barriers to trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland are unacceptable in a sovereign state but that they further undermine the integrity of the UK internal market. I give way to Mrs Dodds.
I thank the Member for the intervention. It gets absolutely to the nub of the issue. Many Members do not want to talk about it, but the real issue that affects many of our everyday businesses — in our manufacturing sector, for example — is that they are forced into the red lane and face full customs and tariff checks, which competitively disadvantages them compared with their GB counterparts. Their businesses are becoming unsustainable. The chief executive of Invest NI has said that he has seen no evidence to date that dual market access has attracted any foreign direct investment to Northern Ireland. The nub of the issue, as my honourable friend has said, is the continued application of EU law in some 300 areas that pertain to large swathes of our economy, which continues to impact on many businesses in Northern Ireland. It is not just about the economy.
My time is brief. It is also about immigration. We saw that in a recent debate at Westminster. Northern Ireland could, essentially, be a back door for illegal immigration because of the continued application of EU law. It applies also to issues of legacy.
The issue is clear, Members. We will vote against.
508 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: 0.19 (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 (0.75).
- 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 | 0.13 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.28 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.08 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.75 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.19 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.91 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.09 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.73 |
| Immigration, asylum, race, ethnicity and Travellers | 0.20 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.04 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.02 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 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.