Debate contribution: Democratic Consent Resolution
Debate contribution by Dr Caoimhe Archibald on .
- MLA
- Dr Caoimhe Archibald
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 10 December 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Democratic Consent Resolution
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4716288
Read the official Assembly record
Text
It is always worth reminding ourselves that the majority of people here in the North voted against Brexit and to remain part of the EU. The people whom we represent in the North did not consent to Brexit and certainly not to the hard Brexit that has transpired. People understood the threat that was posed by Brexit and its detrimental impact on our economy and communities, including our rural communities and farmers, and, most importantly, on our peace agreement and the delicate balance of relationships. We highlighted the lost opportunities for our people, including our young people; loss of funding through the various EU programmes, including for farmers and the community and voluntary sector — funding that has not been replaced, despite promises from the British Government that none of us believed in the first place; loss of trading relationships and creation of barriers where barriers did not exist, including on this island. Others, however, were content to plough on regardless of all that on the basis of ideology and fantasies about the halcyon days of an empire that is long gone and will not return. After the referendum, those of us who wanted to protect the balance of relationships and our communities and economy understood the importance of negotiating arrangements that took account of our special status. Those were painstakingly negotiated over four years in the face of ardent Brexiteers in England who cared, and care, nothing for our people or our place. The result was the protocol and, ultimately, the Windsor framework. It is worth reminding ourselves, as Mr Aiken did, that the democratic consent mechanism that we are debating applies only to articles 5 to 10 — the bit that refers mostly to trade — and has no impact on the rest. It is worth emphasising the important protections against diminution of rights that are contained in the protocol and Windsor framework. When it comes to trade, the vast majority of us recognise that we need to maintain both our North/South and east-west trade. That has not been easy to achieve. It has required difficult compromise and imaginative solutions. As Matthew said, we have had some protections as a result of the protocol.
Speaking of trade, the impact of Brexit on trade has been nothing but negative. This year, up until June 2024, England, Scotland and Wales all experienced a decrease in the value of their exports. The North, however, where the protocol applies, experienced an increase in exports. Businesses here have applied creativity and innovation and have been stretched to achieve what, at times, seemed impossible. The outworkings of the implementation of the protocol have resulted in significant increases in all-island trade. Trade North to South and South to North has increased by billions over the past five years. The all-island economy is going from strength to strength, and that has continued over the first seven months of 2024. It is, of course, important to acknowledge the resilience of our business community. Its willingness to work with officials and politicians to find ways forward has been admirable. We need to record our gratitude for that willingness to work to find solutions. That does not mean that there are not challenges or that there will not be in the future, but the arrangements that are in place are better than the alternative of a land border and having checks on this island. That would have had a catastrophic impact on our integrated supply chains, not to mention our integrated economies and communities. It is long past time that the issue was settled, that certainty was provided for those looking for investment opportunities and that we truly focused on taking advantage of our access to both the British and EU markets in order to develop our economy, support our businesses to grow, create jobs and attract further investment. It is important that the protocol is maintained and that the stability that it provides is upheld by Members' support for the consent motion that we are debating.
668 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: 0.14 (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 (0.79).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.89).
- 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 | 0.13 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.22 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.33 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.06 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.79 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.14 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.89 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.01 |
| Adopts it | 0.10 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.94 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.06 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
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.