Debate contribution: Democratic Consent Resolution
Debate contribution by Ms Kate Nicholl on .
- MLA
- Ms Kate Nicholl
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 10 December 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Democratic Consent Resolution
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4716411
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I add my voice to those that have said that Brexit has been a disaster for the whole United Kingdom and, in very particular ways, for Northern Ireland. The protocol and the Windsor framework are attempts to manage, mitigate and soften the blow of Brexit on our part of the world. We live in a complex place, and there are significant sensitivities that must be managed. It is likely that nobody will ever fully get what they want in a post-Brexit landscape. Maybe that is just life. I keep thinking about the words of Senator Mitchell during the 25th anniversary of the Good Friday Agreement. He warned against the "100 percenters" in politics. In Northern Ireland, of all places, we should know that reasoned, principled compromise is the only pathway to progress. I enjoyed parts of Jonathan Buckley's speech. Words like "quisling" and "skulduggery" do not feature in Hansard nearly enough, much like Spice Girls analogies. However, the Alliance Party will take no lectures from Members who championed this outcome. When I was growing up, there was a sign in a shop in the town that said:
"You break it, you buy it".
I always liked the idea that you are accountable for your actions. That does not seem to fly with the cheerleaders of Brexit. They won but are not willing to be held accountable for the consequences of the actions that they took when they were running through the shop, breaking everything but not accepting the consequences. They broke it, we all had to buy it and it has not been cheap. Cambridge Econometrics found that, this year, Brexit had already cost the British economy £140 billion. That is £2,000 per person. It is staggering. Philip McGuigan and Matthew O'Toole referenced the Office for Budget Responsibility statistics. Its forecast suggests that the volume of UK imports and exports will be 15% lower than if we had remained in the EU and that it could lead to a 4% reduction in the productivity of the UK, with the full effect being felt after 15 years. We are where we are.A clear opportunity is on the horizon, if we have the courage and humility to grasp it. A reset in relations between the UK and the EU is welcome, and, combined with our competitive proposition as the only jurisdiction in the world where businesses can sell goods into GB and the EU free of customs and regulatory barriers, we are well positioned to build a more prosperous Northern Ireland, which, I think, we all want. Yes, there are issues. We need to implement an ambitious SPS agreement and manage our way through the incoming parcels regime and the GPSR, but that is only possible through engagement. The Northern Ireland Chamber of Commerce and Industry has been clear: over 70% of its members surveyed before the general election saw dual market access as a key driver for sales growth. That is why I reject the argument that voting against the motion will send a clear message. I reiterate what my party leader said: it sends the message that we are not pragmatic, forward-thinking or solution-focused. We need to get there with one voice from our Executive, business community and civic society and shine a spotlight on the immense opportunities that come with investing in Northern Ireland. That is what will deliver the progress that our communities cry out for. As Northern Ireland's cross-community party, Alliance has always sought to build positive relationships with those outside this region to deliver the maximum opportunity and prosperity for our communities. Brexit has, undoubtedly, made that task so much more difficult, but it has also made it more urgent. We will continue to proudly engage internationally and build positive relationships that can deliver for everyone here. I want to pick up on one point, because we have heard it a lot. We keep being accused of being rigorous implementers. I do not know whether it is because I am six months pregnant and a bit angrier generally, but I think that that is so disingenuous. The "rigorous implementation" phrase was used in 2020 in a letter that was signed by party leaders in relation to the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 about breaking international law in a "specific and limited way". Accusing us of upholding international agreements and law is really not the accusation that you think it is.
No.
I am sorry, but I will not give way, because I was not given the same courtesy. I asked earlier, and you did not give it to me, so I do not think that that is fair. Alliance is in the business of solutions. Our economy requires certainty and a clear way forward. A vote against the continuation of the articles will deliver the opposite. I hope that Members who vote against the motion are fully cognisant of the impact that doing so would have, if their vote were carried. It is an insult for people who held the institutions down for so long to describe the motion as an "assault on democracy" or a "democratic deficit". It is time to rebuild, not to tear down. Our businesses need stability, not greater uncertainty. Our communities need hope, not constant negativity. My party leader said that we had a choice in how we want to be seen in the world: as innovative, solution-focused and forward-thinking people or as people who are constantly defined by chaos, negativity and instability. I know what I choose, and I know what our constituents want us to choose. Our job in the House is to make this place better and deliver. That starts with voting for the motion.
948 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: 0.12 (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 (0.77).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.87).
- 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 | 0.11 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.06 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.03 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.26 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.14 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.77 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.12 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.87 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.01 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.11 |
| Adopts it | 0.01 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.65 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.21 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.06 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.03 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.02 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:46 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.