Debate contribution: EU Relationship
Debate contribution by Ms Kate Nicholl on .
- MLA
- Ms Kate Nicholl
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 18 November 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Opposition Business
- Heading
- EU Relationship
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4656466
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I will need more than three minutes. I will start by responding to that intervention. Yesterday was my son's fifth birthday. When he opened up his pirate ship, his eyes lit up in much the same way as Jonathan Buckley's eyes lit up when the man from Invest NI talked about dual market access. I keep thinking that the reasons that we have not been able to maximise our dual market access are the continual collapse of the institutions and the Tory chaos at Westminster. I welcome the motion. It is important that we talk about this. We do not want to rehash history. We knew that any form of Brexit would be a bad deal for Northern Ireland and that the hard, purist form of Brexit pursued by the DUP and the Tories would be particularly bad. Brexit is the root cause of the problems that businesses face right now. We need, however, to look ahead and to be realistic about our options and about the potential pathways ahead. We know that the Windsor framework is not perfect. There have been lots of jibes about rigorous implementation, but I remind the Members who like to make those jibes that that related specifically to the breaking of international law. Steve Aiken said that he would not support our amendment. I have a lot of time for Steve — I had a great time with him in Brussels — but he did not talk about why he does not agree with a sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) agreement or the electronic travel authorisation (ETA) exemption; instead, he focused on our behaviour in Committee.
That does not change the fact that Alliance members on that Committee voted for five inquiries.
Yes, go ahead.
Thank you. As there is not much time, I will focus on the amendment, specifically the ETA. An electronic travel authorisation tourist exemption is a vital mitigation that we call for in our amendment. It will have a huge impact on our tourism offer and industry. Over 70% of Northern Ireland's international visitors enter via Dublin and cross the land border. ETA requirements could deter visitors, as many might simply exclude Northern Ireland from their travel plans. Also, there are legal risks for tourists who may unknowingly cross the border without an ETA. In 2023, there were an estimated 5·4 million overnight trips to Northern Ireland, with an associated expenditure of £1·2 billion, and £900 million of that came from external visitors, so it is so important that we talk about the impact of tourism. My colleague talked about how much of an impact the SPS agreement would have. The best deal was always to remain in the EU, but, now that we have left, we have to continue to work hard to make progress on issues emerging from that decision that affect people in Northern Ireland. On the point about democracy, the protocol and the Windsor framework were literally passed by Westminster. Alliance will continue to offer a constructive and forward-looking approach that seeks to build positive relationships across these islands and across Europe. That is the very least that our constituents deserve —
— and it is what we need to maximise opportunities.
I call Colin McGrath to make a winding-up speech on the motion. Colin, you have five minutes.
552 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: 0.07 (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 (1.00).
- 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 | 0.06 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.07 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.06 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.89 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.07 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.64 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.33 |
| Immigration, asylum, race, ethnicity and Travellers | 0.02 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 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.