Debate contribution: Democratic Consent Resolution

Debate contribution by Mrs Naomi Long on 10 December 2024.

MLA

Mrs Naomi Long

Party at the time

Alliance Party

Date

10 December 2024

Type

Debate contribution (made as a minister)

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

Democratic Consent Resolution

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4716147

Read the official Assembly record

Text

After listening to Mr Buckley, you would almost think that the DUP had lost the Brexit referendum. You won, guys. Cheer up. I must be the only person who was bothered before by the phrase "Not available for sale in Northern Ireland" when I was ordering things online. It used to happen regularly before Brexit. It was often linked to the cost of postage, the size of the item and lots of other barriers. I am not sure that is as simple as saying that, because those things exist today, they are all a result of the Windsor framework. However, I get a sense that the entire debate feels a bit like, "Hello, actions. Let me introduce you to consequences". Today's democratic consent motion, when we decide whether to continue with articles 5 to 10 of the Windsor framework, marks another important moment in our long journey towards some kind of stability post Brexit. In the eight years since the UK voted to depart the European Union, a lot of time, energy and resource have been spent navigating the choppy and uncharted waters into which that decision launched us all — a lot of time, energy and resource that might have been better spent by investing in our communities are making life better for the people we represent. You will be relieved to know that I do not intend to stand here today and rehearse all the harm that has been caused by Brexit over the last eight years to our finances, our economy, our politics, our international relationships, trust between political partners and government and even the functioning of the institutions in which we stand. There simply would not be time to do so, although some people have challenged that notion, but more importantly, it would not be a productive use of the time we have this afternoon. Instead, I want to focus on the future and the opportunities and challenges that lie ahead, as well as the need to focus on solutions and stability. Alliance has always been clear that it is simply not possible to entirely square the circle of the challenges and contradictions posed by Brexit. Leaving the EU made a level of friction, barriers and bureaucracy inevitable. The only question remaining was where that would occur, not whether it would occur. To be clear, I said at the time in studio after studio with members of the DUP that the most pragmatic and likely option — not my option of choice — to be pursued, because of its simplicity, was that those frictions would happen at the seven ports and airports rather than along 300 miles of border. That is just logic, but that was never applied during Brexit. However, if we rebuild trust and apply creativity, we can and must lessen the impact of Brexit. We know that challenges remain and, indeed, that further challenges will emerge, and with that at the forefront of our minds, we should now consider our options moving forward. We have a choice today, a choice about how we present Northern Ireland to the rest of the world. Are we a place committed to tackling the most difficult challenges head-on, finding creative solutions and building stability and prosperity for the people we represent, or are we to be for ever defined by uncertainty, chaos and instability, allowing Brexit to be a constantly open wound, suppurating and poisoning our economy and our body politic? The attritional war about Brexit has done enough damage. We need to look now at how we move forward. As a divided society, we know all too well that Northern Ireland works only when we recognise our interdependence in our communities, across these islands and beyond with our European and global partners. People in this jurisdiction interact, and businesses have supply chains and sales both North/South and east-west. Brexit, particularly a hard form of Brexit, was always going to cause friction and create barriers, particularly with the UK's decision to leave the customs union and single market as part of the Brexit process. It created an interface with the EU that had to be managed somewhere, and, as I said, while it was not my choice where it was to be handled, it was logical and apparent to anyone who considered the options available where it would end up, out of convenience and pragmatism alone. That is why Alliance opposed leaving the EU and advocated the softest possible Brexit to minimise the friction and tensions when the UK decided to leave. By contrast, a hard Brexit was pursued by the DUP in collaboration with the Conservatives, whom they propped up. There is no point denouncing the British Government for their treachery. I agree that they treated unionists appallingly, but you let them. You propped them up and helped them. That type of Brexit was always going to necessitate special arrangements for Northern Ireland to manage those tensions and frictions. While the Windsor framework is far from perfect, it clearly provides for the softer landing that we need. It is also, frankly, the only game in town, as the new Labour Government have made clear. Of course, my hope is that, over time, that can change and evolve and become less bureaucratic and more flexible, but it will, nevertheless, be the starting point for that evolution. Acting collectively, with the best interests of Northern Ireland as our compass, it is not beyond our capacity to navigate all the post-Brexit complexities together. That is our collective responsibility to those who elected us. While this juncture will expose a clear difference in opinion today, it is important that we quickly move beyond that by working together. I remain optimistic that our best days are ahead of us, and I am wholly committed to us getting there. That is a project that is for us collectively to deliver. Alliance is proud to be strongly pro-European. We maintain close links and positive relationships with parties across the EU and will always seek to use whatever influence we hold to the benefit of our community in Northern Ireland. During my short time as an MEP, I witnessed first-hand the level of knowledge, interest and commitment to ensuring that Northern Ireland was protected from the worst excesses of Brexit that existed in the Parliament, the Council and the Commission. That interest in our affairs and the success of our institutions remains strong among my former colleagues. We should make every effort to continue to foster that interest and understanding and to build deeper and stronger relationships, as there is a huge opportunity for us in doing so and it assists us in identifying the issues that are coming down the tracks and helps us to prepare for the changes that may impact on us directly or indirectly. Of course, it is not just politicians who have a role in resolving outstanding issues. Those issues can be tackled only in collaboration with others, including civic society and businesses. The consensus there is clear: we need to improve implementation through practical measures, including a comprehensive UK/EU veterinary and sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) agreement such as we advocated during the negotiations. We know that an ambitious SPS agreement and UK/EU veterinary agreement would significantly reduce checks and bureaucracy on Irish Sea trade and enhance our collective food security, both of which things we would all welcome, not least because it means that, the next time Mr Buckley gets up to outline a list of problems, it will be considerably shorter. We also need improved information and assistance for businesses based in GB regarding trade with Northern Ireland. That is an issue that I have raised again with the current Secretary of State, having done so repeatedly with previous Secretaries of State. Many businesses in England opt not to trade with Northern Ireland, even when there is no regulatory barrier to doing so, due to uncertainty about the bureaucracy and paperwork. Early and enhanced engagement between Northern Ireland's elected representatives, Executive Departments and other stakeholders in the development of EU law is also essential if we are to avert crises and respond dynamically to new developments. Furthermore, in Alliance, we are mindful of the challenges coming down the line on the GPSR regulations and parcels, and we continue to work to find solutions to those and other challenges. That is our job. We are not professional critics; we are meant to be professional problem-solvers. There are other aspects that would help improve our relationship with the EU and provide us with additional opportunities, including, among others, a progressive return to freedom of movement; deepening of the policing and justice cooperation agreements, which, I have to say, have been incredibly successful; mutual recognition of professional qualifications; merging of UK and EU emissions trading regimes and carbon border adjustment mechanisms; and a joint approach on chemicals. All of those will take time and trust to advance, but all of them offer us new opportunities. Ultimately, closer and stronger relationships with the EU and better alignment between the UK and the EU would reduce the need for many aspects of the Windsor framework and would limit friction for business and trade. The UK Government have indicated that they want to achieve that, and, as a party, we are open to further negotiated, bilaterally agreed changes that deliver those improvements. However, unilateral actions, reneging on agreements or breaking international law in limited and specific ways not only are destabilising but fly in the face of the Government's commitment to rebuild those strong relationships with the EU. I trust that that phase in our relationship has now passed. Although this is not part of the articles that are being debated today, it has been raised, so it is crucial for me to state, both as leader of the Alliance Party and as Minister of Justice, the importance of article 2 in protecting rights under the Good Friday Agreement and the European Convention on Human Rights. We will continue to defend that from any attack or diminution, in line with the Windsor framework. While I have spoken about overcoming the challenges that Brexit presents, if we are focused on the future and on growing our economy, we also need to be willing to exploit any opportunities as they arise. Mr Buckley made much of the fact that, so far, we have not been able to do so, but he should talk to his colleague who was Economy Minister, who did not want to mention the opportunities in our 10X Economy strategy that made us able to exploit the benefits of the opportunity to have a free flow of trade into both markets.

I genuinely think that the Member has spoken for long enough, but I am more than happy to give way to other Members. I want to make some progress. If we are going to be serious about doing this, we have to look for and exploit the opportunities as they arise. The commitment of the new UK Government to a reset of relations with the EU offers Northern Ireland a real opportunity to assert ourselves more robustly, positively and constructively; to place ourselves at the centre of that process; and to ensure that not just our needs but our ambitions are at the heart of those discussions. With a common commitment to delivery from the Executive and local parties and leveraging the power of dual market access, we can unleash opportunities that lie in the Windsor framework arrangements to grow our economy. In the spirit of maximising our potential and solving common problems, the UK Government and the EU must urgently step up their efforts to reset relations. I hope that that will also mark a reset in relationships between the British and Irish Governments, which have been placed under significant strain during Brexit and unhelpfully so. As neighbours and allies, all our futures are bound together, and, if we are serious about economic growth, political stability, peace and security, the engagement must become more constructive and positive than has been the case over recent years. We as a party remain committed to doing all that we can to reduce the level and impact of checks in the Irish Sea through closer alignment and reduced divergence and to simplify any remaining processes and checks. We are dedicated to exploiting every opportunity presented by dual market access to help local businesses grow and thrive. The majority of people and businesses in Northern Ireland do not want further chaos and instability; they want to see progress and pragmatic solutions. That is what Alliance has always offered and will always offer, and it is why we will support the motion. In the run-up to the debate, there has been a lot of media focus on unionist concerns regarding the Windsor framework; indeed, Mr Buckley raised it again today in the debate. He claimed falsely that Alliance and others had no interest in those concerns. I want to put it on record that we have always acknowledged that there are genuine concerns and that we wish to see those addressed insofar as they can be. I have set out in my speech some of the mechanisms that, I believe, will assist us in doing so. However, it is worth remembering at this early stage in the debate that there are many who are not unionists who also have significant residual concerns regarding the ongoing impact of Brexit, a Brexit that we did not champion or choose. Yet, we will vote for the motion today. If we are to move forward constructively, we need to acknowledge that the Windsor framework is an imperfect attempt to manage a hugely divisive and widely impactful situation. We in Alliance have also done significant heavy lifting in championing change to the protocol and agreeing that change, and we will continue to so.

We were the first political party to call for grace periods to defer the application of aspects of the protocol in order to give time for businesses to continue to prepare, for supply chains to readjust and, most crucially, for mitigations and derogations to be agreed. We pushed for Northern Ireland political representation on UK-EU decision-making bodies and tabled amendments to that effect in Parliament. We championed flexibilities on the regulation and supply of medicines into Northern Ireland and welcomed creative solutions that have now been provided by the Commission. Alliance led a campaign on the creation of a comprehensive UK-EU veterinary agreement as the most comprehensive means to minimise the nature and level of sanitary and phytosanitary checks across the Irish Sea and secure the supply of veterinary medicines. We welcomed the extension of that veterinary medicines grace period, but we have warned that a long-term solution now needs to be urgently found, as part of those UK-EU talks. We also called for a derogation on regulations relating to dental amalgam, which was subsequently granted by the EU. If you engage constructively, progress can be made, but you have to go with practical solutions.

Softer and more flexible alternative versions of Brexit existed, and, indeed, Alliance pressed for them to be properly considered. However, they were roundly dismissed by largely the same people who railed against the protocol and will vote against this motion on the Windsor framework today. Ironically, the DUP claimed earlier this year that the sea border had been removed and hailed the current arrangements under the Windsor framework as a success, following the publication of the 'Safeguarding the Union' paper. What has changed since then? To be clear, Alliance's support for the framework and this motion is not because it is perfect or seamless. It is not because it is what we have always wanted. It is because it is the better option when faced with a choice between hard and soft borders, between friction and facilitation and between stability and chaos. I also question whether some of the Members choosing to vote against the motion today have properly considered the potential consequences were their will to be carried out. It will be interesting to hear whether any credible, workable alternatives that could be delivered in the next two years will be advanced today by Members who are opposing the motion. There has certainly been none in the past eight years, nor was a single one offered in all the verbosity of Mr Buckley's speech. The abject lack of seriousness in his contribution and his recourse, at times, to personal insults underpins a lack of seriousness that has defined the DUP's approach to Brexit, from start to finish.

I also wonder whether some who are opposing —

I also wonder whether some who are opposing this genuinely believe that it would be a good idea for the House to reject the motion or whether they will be quietly relieved if the motion passes despite their opposition. It would be remiss of me, in that context, not to note that, if and when the House divides today, for once, on an issue of this seriousness and magnitude, my vote and those of my colleagues will count for just as much as every other Member of the House and will be able to genuinely influence the outcome. To be clear on a matter that was raised — I asked Mr Buckley to give way to allow me to clarify, but he did not wish to do so — there was no cross-community consent for Brexit in the first place. The DUP cannot now demand that there must be cross-community support for how we leave the EU but not on whether we leave the EU. The Windsor framework and the protocol were agreed by the UK and EU as part of an international agreement. Just like votes at 16, those are reserved matters; ones that will be decided not on the Floor of this Chamber but in Westminster. It was approved by Parliament, which is sovereign, so it is not an issue for us. Trade is not a devolved issue. Handing any single party, in any devolved institution in these islands, a de facto veto over national government policy is not a credible proposition, and the DUP, at its core, knows that that is the case. If I give them credit for anything, it is that they are skilled parliamentarians and understand the primacy of Parliament in these matters. Cross-community votes in this House are the least cross-community of any vote in the Assembly, excluding as they do the votes of those who are in a cross-community party and who make up almost 20% of the membership of the House. As a genuinely cross-community party, we are committed to genuine cross-community voting, not by majoritarianism but by using weighted majority voting, which is a much better system. Excluding the third-largest party in the Chamber, and a party in government, from so-called cross-community votes is an affront to democracy. There will, I am sure, be Members who, in this debate, will talk of the democratic deficit — again, Mr Buckley spoke of it — that was created by Brexit, yet they refuse to address the democratic deficit right here in the Chamber, week in, week out, every time that we vote by parallel consent. I encourage them, when the debate concludes and as we look to work to address our future together, to address that deficit, which it is in their gift to do, with the same vigour as they have addressed this one.

3,247 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:45 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.

Challenge this classification